Compensation Under Motor Vehicle (Amendment) Act, 2019 – A Critical Analysis
Author: LawSphereX
Category: General Law
Published:
Updated:
COMPENSATION UNDER MOTOR VEHICLE
(AMENDMENT) ACT, 2019 – A CRITICAL ANALYSIS
Prachi Rashmi, Assistant Professor, Lloyd Law College, Greater Noida
ABSTRACT
Road accidents have severe far-reaching consequences, often resulting in loss of life or debilitating injuries. The impact extends beyond the victims, imposing emotional, financial, and social hardships on their families. Despite the alarming frequency of such incidents compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicle (Amendment) Act, 2019 often remains inadequate and inconsistent, leaving victims and their families struggling to recover. This paper critically examines whether the existing legal framework effectively addresses both the economic and non-economic losses suffered by the accident victims. It explores key challenges, including inconsistencies in compensation across states, delays in legal proceedings, and difficulties in assessing non-monetary damages such as emotional suffering and lack of companionship.
The study further evaluated the need for a standardized approach to compensation determination and potential reforms to enhance the fairness and efficiency of the system. By analyzing judicial precedents, legislative provisions, and tribunal practices, this paper highlights the gaps in the current framework and proposes measures for a more equitable and timely compensation mechanism. Ensuring consistency, transparency and prompt relief in accident claims is crucial for delivering justice to victims and their families.
1. Introduction.
Road accidents have devastating and immediate consequences, often resulting in the loss of life or severe injuries. The impact of a traumatic road accident, not only affects an individual but profoundly affects the families of the victims through emotional distress, financial burdens, and long-term hardships. In 2022, India recorded 461,312 road accidents, leading to 168,491 fatalities and 443,366 injuries.1 On average, this equated to 1263 accidents and 462 deaths daily, or approximately
53 accidents and 19 deaths per hour.2 However, despite these alarming figures, the
compensation awarded by the courts often remained inadequate, leaving the victims and their families struggling to rebuild their lives. 3 The increasing number of accidents and delays in the justice system exacerbate their plight, depriving victims and their families of timely relief. One of the primary challenges in accident compensation has been the difficulty of quantifying losses, particularly the non-economic damages, such as emotional suffering and loss of companionship. Even when the compensation is granted, the legal delays further aggravate the victims’ hardships by depriving them of timely relief. Additionally, inconsistencies in compensation awards across different states resulted in varying methods used by the Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunals contributing to disparities and dissatisfaction amongst the claimants.
This paper critically examines whether the existing legal framework under the Motor Vehicle (Amendment) Act, 2019 (“Act”) adequately addresses both tangible and intangible losses suffered by accident victims and their families. It explores the need for a standardized approach to compensation determination and assesses the adequacy of existing laws in ensuring justice. While the Act aims to protect accident victims, challenges such as inconsistent awards, procedural delays, and ambiguities in liabilities continue to hinder the effectiveness of the compensation. The paper proposes reforms to establish a more equitable, efficient, and compassionate compensation mechanism. 1 Ministry of Road Transport and Highways Transport and Research Wing, “Road accident in India, 2022” (2023)
2 Ibid,at p.4
3 Adil Ata Azmi and Sewa Ram, “Accident victim characteristics and identification of key parameters for compensation in Indian context,” 11 Urban, Planning and Transport Research 2235418 (2023).
Though the Act, aims to protect road accident victims, issues like inconsistent awards, legal delays, and unclear liability continue to hinder justice. This paper critically analyses these challenges and proposes reforms for ensuring fair, efficient, and compassionate remuneration.
2. Meaning of just and reasonable compensation.
The term “compensation” must be distinguished from “damages”. While damages primarily provide financial relief for a loss, compensation is broader, ensuring fairness and equity. The term "just" implies fairness, reasonableness, adherence to legal principles, and the absence of arbitrariness. 4 The main goal of compensation is to fully restore the affected person to the position they were in before the accident. 5 While achieving absolute mathematical precision may not always be possible, compensation must be determined as accurately as possible based on the facts of each case. 6 Compensation should neither be excessive nor merely symbolic. 7 The compensation must be just, fair, and appropriate. 8 Section 168 of the Act, which mandates just compensation for the victims, was incorporated as beneficial legislation.
Indian Courts have wide discretion to assess compensation based on rational and judicious grounds. 9 A liberal and compassionate approach is essential, with due regard to the nature of the injury and the consequential loss of income. 10 A combination of factors such as the victim’s age, income, number of dependents, and impact on future earnings are taken into consideration to arrive at compensation. Compensation consists of both pecuniary and non-pecuniary components. Pecuniary damages cover tangible losses, such as medical expenses and loss of earnings, while non-pecuniary damages address intangible losses, such as pain and suffering. The quantification of nonpecuniary damages presents challenges due to their subjective nature, leading to variations in awards.
4 Justice Deepak Gupta, “Award of compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, Guiding principles for Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Trinbunals. ” Himachal Pradesh Judicial Academy 36.
5 Anant v. Pratap 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1082.
6 Asharaf K.A v. Easow T.T. 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 7968
7 National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others., SCC, 2017,16.
8 State of Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur, 2004 (1) TN MAC 337 (SC) 7.
9 Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra SRTC (1999(1) SCC 90.
10 Yadav Kumar v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr., SCC, 2010, 10.
Although money can never truly substitute a lost life, the courts must strive to grant just compensation with a uniform and balanced approach.11
3. Parameters Considered in Determining Compensation.
The assessment of compensation in motor accident claims involves various factors to ensure just and equitable relief to the claimants. The key parameters taken into account include:
3.1 Income of the Deceased – The financial standing of the deceased at the time of the accident
is taken into consideration to arrive at compensation. The income of an individual is assessed based on Income Tax Returns, bank statements, and business records. A combination of documents enhances the accuracy in claims jurisdiction.
3.2 Notional Income – In cases where no documentary evidence of income is available, the
monthly income of the deceased is based on notional income. 12 Notional income is typically applied in cases where the deceased has no regular tangible source of income, such as homemakers, students, infants, or an unemployed person. To arrive at notional income, the courts rely on the minimum wage benchmark and also account for the potential earnings of the individual upon reaching adulthood. Moreover, compensation must also account for pain and suffering, loss of job and marriage prospects, attendant charges, and future medical expenses. 13 The court has often emphasized taking a holistic view to understand the impact of a fatal accident and to include components of emotional and psychological suffering.
14 Though the concept of notional income provides a general framework for estimating the earnings of the individual without a formal source of income, the practical application of the same remains very case specific leading to inconsistencies in awarding damages. Many times there is also an undervaluation of the economic contribution by the courts in cases of homemakers and students. Developing a more standardized formula in such cases, in the light of socio-economic realities would enhance the equity in compensation awards.
11 Smt. Sarla Verma v. DTC., SCC, 2009, VI.
12 Sahana Khatoon v. New Indian Assurance Co. Ltd. 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 3695.
13 Kajal v. Jagdish Chand ,SCC 2020, 413,4.
14 Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram (2018) 18 SCC 130.
3.3 Contribution to Dependents - In accounting for compensation, the court takes into
account the number of dependants and the portion of income that the deceased would have allocated to the dependants from his income.
3.4 Future Income Prospects - While determining the compensation amount, the courts also
take into account the deceased’s potential career growth and his future earning capacity. This assessment is particularly relevant in cases where the deceased had either died at a young age or was unemployed at the time of death. As individuals continually evolve, acquire skills, and advance professionally, a compensation framework must not disregard future earning potential. The legal heirs of such individuals should not be denied the benefit of prospects. 15 In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 16the Supreme Court explicitly recognized the importance of adding prospects to the computation of compensation, holding that the loss of earning capacity must be evaluated holistically. A failure to do so would lead to the undervaluation of claims, disproportionately affecting the financial security of the deceased’s dependents.
While the inclusion of prospects strengthens the principle of just compensation, practical challenges arise when assessing the potential income of individuals who were unemployed at the time of death. From the undervaluation of the potential contributions to the absence of a standardized framework, the claimants are left dissatisfied.
3.5 Personal and Living Expenses - The estimated amount spent on personal needs and
sustenance is also taken into account.
3.6 Age of the Deceased – A crucial factor in determining the appropriate multiplier for
compensation calculation is the age of the deceased.
3.7 Number of Dependents – A key element in assessing the loss of dependency and financial
burden on the surviving family members is the number of dependents.
3.8 Loss of Consortium - The loss of consortium is a conventional head that takes into account
spousal consortium, parental consortium, and filial consortium. Consortium means loss of the
15 National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680.
16 (2017) 16 SCC 680.
company, care, help comfort, guidance, solace, and affection of the deceased and concerning spouse, loss of sexual relation.17 Motor vehilce being a social welfare, beneficial legislation, duty bound to provide just compensation irrespective of whether the plea was raised by the claimant or not.18
4. Legal Provisions Governing Compensation Claims.
4.1 No-Fault Liability
The introduction of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, further expanded the claimant's options for compensation. Individuals affected by motor vehicle accidents may seek relief through (i) the no-fault liability provision under Section 164. (ii) The fault-based claim mechanism under Section 166. Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 is premised on the principle of nofault liability, ensuring that claimants are not required to establish negligence or fault on the part of the vehicle owner or driver to receive compensation. Under this provision, the compensation amounts are fixed—₹500,000 in the case of death and ₹250,000 for grievous injury—offering a streamlined mechanism for financial relief to accident victims.
The no-fault liability was incorporated into the legislative framework to expedite the compensation process and to provide timely financial assistance to the victim and their families. Though this provision facilitates swift redressal, concerns persist regarding the adequacy of the compensation in addressing the actual loss incurred. Consequently, the claimants seek a more comprehensive compensation package and often opt for fault-based claims under Section 166 of the Act.
4.2 Fault liability.
Section 166 of the Act follows a fault-based liability system, allowing victims of motor vehicle accidents or their legal representatives to claim compensation from the person at fault. The
17 Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (2013)9 SCC 54.
18 General Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Nanu Ram 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1546.
fault-based compensation was emphasized by the Apex Court in 119 where it was affirmed that no liability arises unless negligence is proved. The same principle was affirmed by the court in K. SRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty.20 This provision requires the claimant to prove negligence or
wrongful act on the part of the driver, making the process adverbial and often time-consuming. Notably, Section 166 of the Act, employs the term, “legal representative” representative rather than “dependant”, indicating that dependency, while a relevant factor in compensation claims is not a sole determinant under the pecuniary, non-pecuniary, and conventional heads of compensation.21 The term "legal representative" refers to an individual legally entitled to inherit the estate of a deceased person, provided that such an estate exists at the time of death. This definition extends to legal heirs, executors, and administrators of the deceased’s estate. There are three categories of individuals who are eligible to file compensation under Section
166 of the Act. They are the injured party, the owner of the damaged property, and in case of
any fatal accidents, the legal representative of the deceased. One major criticism of fault liability under this section is the burden of proof on the claimant. Many victims, especially, in hit-and-run cases, struggle to establish negligence due to the lack of evidence. This often leads to delayed justice and financial hardship for the victims, who may be already suffering due to injuries or loss of livelihood. While Section 166 ensures that compensation is paid by the wrongdoer, the legal hurdles in proving negligence make it difficult for the victims. The balanced approach combining no-fault liability with fault-based higher compensation could enhance the effectiveness of motor vehicle accident compensation cases.
4.3 Structured Formula.
Section 163A, introduced through the 1994 Amendment, provided for a structured formula for compensation, beginning with a non-obstante clause. This provision ensured compensation to the legal heirs of deceased victims as per the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicle Act, However, the structured formula presented inconsistencies, particularly regarding the multiplier method used to calculate compensation.
19 (1977) AIR 1248.
20 (2003) 7 SCC 197.
21 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Shalumol 2021 SCC OnLine Ker 3209.
The prescribed compensation was lower for cases where the multiplier was 18 or higher, while higher compensation was granted for multipliers of 15, 16, or 17. This resulted in discrepancies, as the multiplier was influenced not only by the age of the deceased but also by the degree of dependency. Conventionally, an additional ₹5,000 to ₹10,000 is included for loss of estate. 22 If the deceased was survived by a widow, the loss of consortium was also factored in. The other considerations such as funeral expenses, transport costs and medical expenses were also accounted for. However, the judicial methodology in determining deductions for personal expenses has been inconsistent No uniform standards exist and deductions vary based on deceased’s lifestyle and habits, as determined on case-by-case-basis.
In Susamma Thomas,23 the court applied a 1/3rd deduction of the deceased's gross income for personal expenses. Conversely, in UPSRTC v. Trilok Chandra,24 the court emphasized that greater dependency requires a greater contribution to the family. In this case, where the deceased was a bachelor, the unit method was adopted, wherein two units were taken for each adult and one unit for each minor. A progressive deduction approach was also developed for calculation of personal expenses in the following way. • 1/3rd deduction if the deceased was married • 1/4th deduction if there were 2-3 dependents • 1/5th deduction if there were 4-6 dependents In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie,25 the Supreme Court held that the highest multiplier (18) applied to victims aged 21-25 years, whereas lower multipliers applied to older age groups (60-70 years).
This principle was reaffirmed in TN State Road Corporation Ltd. v. Rajapriya,26, which analyzed Table II of the Schedule under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The structured formula approach under Section 163A presented inherent anomalies, particularly in cases where the annual income is ₹15,000 or less. The judiciary’s varied interpretations have
22 2005(10) SCC 720.
23 1994 (2) SCC 176.
24 (1996) 4 SCC 362.
25 2005(10) SCC 720.
26 2005(6) SCC 236.
resulted in inconsistent applications, making it imperative to revisit the methodology for a more equitable and standardized compensation mechanism. Motor Vehicle (Amendment) Act,
2019 repealed Section 40-Section 44 and Section 163A of the 1988 Act.
5. Judicial Approach to Arriving at a Compensation Amount.
The courts follow the principle of restitution ad integrum, which aims to restore victims or their dependents as closely as possible to their pre-accident financial position. This principle is embedded in the Motor Vehicles Act, of 1988, which employs the multiplier method for calculating compensation. The process involves the following steps:
5.1 Determining the multiplicand - The income of the deceased is first ascertained, with
deductions made for personal and living expenses. The remaining balance is considered the contribution to the dependent family.
5.2 Selecting the appropriate multiplier – The multiplier method calculated compensation
for the loss of dependency by determining the multiplicand ( annual dependency) and applying the appropriate multiplier based on the age of the deceased or the claimants. The courts prefer this method as it ensured consistency and fairness, unlike unscientific approaches that total future earnings without proper deductions. The multiplicand was selected according to Section 163A read with Schedule II of the 1988 Act
5.3 Loss of Dependency. – The annual contribution to the family, representing the financial
loss suffered by the dependants is computed.
5.4 Compensation for the loss of estate – An additional ₹5,000 to ₹10,000 is conventionally
added for the loss of estate.
5.5 Compensation for the loss of consortium – If the deceased is survived by a widow,
compensation is granted for the loss of companionship, as also recognized in Smt. Sarla Verma v. DTC27.
5.6 Other incidental expenses – The courts also take into consideration expenses related to
funeral costs, transportation of the body, and the medical treatment of the deceased.
27 (2009) 5 S.C.R 1098.
By applying these principles and calculations, courts strive to ensure fair and just compensation for the bereaved families, balancing both legal frameworks and humanitarian considerations.
6. Critical Analysis of Compensation Determination in Motor Accident Claims.
The compensation framework under the Motor Vehicles Act, of 1988, aims to provide just and equitable relief to accident victims or their dependents. While the methodology—particularly the multiplier method—offers a structured approach, several inconsistencies and challenges arise in its application. This section critically evaluates the efficacy, limitations, and judicial interpretations of the compensation determination process. The principle of restitution ad integrum, which seeks to restore victims to their pre-accident financial position, is a well-established doctrine in tort law. However, in practical application, this principle faces several hurdles:
6.1 Subjectivity in income determination – Estimating the income of the deceased, especially
in cases involving informal sector workers, unemployed individuals, or young students, is speculative. The notional income employed by the courts may not accurately reflect the earning potential. Moreover, future projections of income may fail to take into account the imponderables such as economic downturns, job instability, or premature retirement. The income component of the compensation in motor vehicle accident cases may have subjective prejudices.
6.2 Inconsistencies in the multiplier selection – The multiplier method, although structured,
is subject to judicial discretion, leading to inconsistent application. The court recognizes that life is full of imponderables, yet they rely on fixed multipliers which may not account for factors like health conditions, job security, or socio-economic background. The same multiplier is applied across all cases despite clear differences, in earning potential and career longevity between blue-collar and white-collar jobs. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Charlie28, the highest multiplier (18) was applied to the 21-25 age group, while lower multipliers were applied to older age brackets. However, the lack of flexibility in adjusting multipliers for unique career trajectories raised concerns about fairness.
28 2005(10) SCC 720.
6.3 Personal expenses deductions – One of the most debated aspects of compensation
calculation is the deduction of personal and living expenses, which directly impacts the final amount awarded. In Smt. Sarla Verma v. DTC, 29 the Supreme Court established a 1/3rd deduction for a married deceased, with variations based on the number of dependents. In UPSRTC v. Trilok Chandra, 30a unit-based method was introduced, which attributed two units per adult and one per minor ensuring a more nuanced approach. However, the lack of a standardized deduction system results in judicial inconsistencies, end up similar cases being awarded differently.
6.4 Underestimation of non-pecuniary damages – While a multiplier method effectively
quantifies economic losses, the non-economic losses such as trauma, pain, suffering, and loss of companionship remain undervalued. The compensation for loss of consortium, particularly for spouses and children remains nominal. The courts conventionally add ₹5,000 to ₹10,000 for the loss of estate, a figure that appears grossly inadequate given inflation and modern financial realities. The ₹15,000 income cap under Section 163A (pre-amendment) created an anomalous situation, where families of victims earning slightly above the threshold received disproportionately lower compensation.
6.5 Judicial discretion – One of the major criticisms of compensation determination is the
wide judicial discretion that leads to inconsistent awards. There is no uniform approach in considering the loss of prospects, as courts sometimes enhance the multiplicand, while other times they do not. The cases involving self-employed individuals or homemakers pose additional challenges, as courts struggle to quantify their economic contribution.
6.6 Limitations of the Tribunal - The matter pending before the Tribunal regarding
compensation cannot be transferred to the High Court under Section 24 CPC. Motor Vehicle legislation has a specific application and it has been created by State Government under Rule
221 of Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules 1998.31 The Tribunal may be overburdened and has
limited applicability, the High Court cannot come to the rescue. In India, most insurance companies pay compensation depending upon the premium and the sum insured. The establishment of fault liability warrants a bigger amount of compensation.
29 Supra n. 28.
30 (1996) 4 SCC 362.
31 Shankar Lal v. Asha Devi (2018)SCC OnLine all 2545
However, due to the inordinate delay in getting a verdict in one’s favor, one is forced to accept an inadequate meagre compensation. 32 Section 173 provides for the right of appeal against the award of a claims tribunal. Any aggrieved party may challenge the tribunal’s decision before the High Court within 90 days from the date of the award, ensuring a further avenue for legal redress in cases where the awarded compensation is contested. The judiciary has consistently emphasized the beneficial nature of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, ensuring just compensation to victims. Notably, in certain instances, courts have awarded compensation exceeding the amount initially claimed by the petitioner. 33 Under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has the right to exercise its advisory jurisdiction, a power not extended to the High Court.
34 However, the High Court possesses the discretion to enhance compensation under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC. 35
7. Conclusion.
The current framework for motor accident compensation, while evolving through judicial precedents, still lacks a standardized methodology for evaluating losses in cases without direct evidence of income. The courts often rely on discretion, leading to variations in the compensation awards. The principle of just compensation necessitates an evolutionary approach that aligns with the dynamic nature of human potential. While judicial recognition of prospects is a progressive development, the practical implementation of this concept remains inconsistent, particularly for non-earning individuals. A structured legislative approach, through guidelines issued by the Motor Vehicle Accident
Claims Tribunal, could bring consistency and predictability to compensation calculation. While judicial pronouncements have played a crucial role in refining the assessment of compensation in motor accident cases, gaps remain in the practical implementation of these principles. The 32 Adil Ata Azmi and Sewa Ram, “Accident victim characteristics and identification of key parameters for compensation in Indian context,” 11 Urban, Planning and Transport Research 2235418 (2023).
33 Ramla v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2018 SCC OnLine SC 2616.
34 National India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Sunita 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 2
35 Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi v. Kasam Dau Kumbhar (2015) 4 SCC 237.
transition from notional income to minimum wages is a step toward ensuring fairer compensation, but it requires further refinement to accommodate diverse economic circumstances. Additionally, a more structured approach to non-economic damages and a balanced consideration of Income Tax return as evidence could improve the reliability and fairness of compensation awards. A holistic, well-defined legislative framework would help bridge the inconsistencies that still exist in motor accident compensation jurisprudence.
8. Recommendations
While the existing framework for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act provides a structured methodology, it suffers from inconsistencies and discretionary variations. The following reforms could enhance its effectiveness.
8.1 Industry trends and economic growth – The compensation calculation should reflect
broader economic trends considering inflation, cost of living, gross domestic product, and wage growth projections.
8.2 Judicial precedents and uniform standards – Establishing guidelines through statutory
reforms and judicial directives can help ensure consistency in awarding compensation. 8.3 Multiplier Approach – Instead of having a rigid multiplier table, courts could adopt casespecific adjustments, based on profession, health, and socio-economic conditions. Younger individuals with higher educational qualifications or specialized training may have their future earning capacity assessed beyond notional income and the multiplier.
8.4 Revised non-pecuniary compensation – The non-economic component in the
compensation method such as the loss of consortium, estate, and dependency calculations must be updated and upgraded to be congruent to modern economic realities.
8.5 Standardised income guidelines –A uniform framework may be established for
determining notional income, especially for non-earning individuals. Also, a more consistent fact-based approach could be employed to assess the percentage of personal expense deductions.
8.6 AI-based compensation models – With the recent technological advancement especially
in Artificial intelligence and the digital data backdrop, the courts may employ scientific tools
to reduce subjectivity in compensation awards. By addressing these issues, we may have a more just, predictable, and equitable compensation system that truly aligns with the principles of restitution and integrum. A structured methodology that incorporates economic projections, individual qualifications, and a standardized assessment framework would enhance fairness and ensure that legal heirs receive compensation that accurately reflects the deceased’s unrealized earning potential.
References
1. Adil Ata Azmi and Sewa Ram, “Accident victim characteristics and identification of key
parameters for compensation in the Indian context,” 11 Urban, Planning and Transport Research 2235418 (2023).
2. Justice Deepak Gupta, “Award of compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, Guiding
principles for Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal.” Himachal Pradesh Judicial Academy 36.
3. Smt. Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transprt Corp and Anr.
4. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. v. Sameera Hajimayan Patel and Anr.
5. Jai Prakash v. National Insurance Co. (2010) 2 SCC 607
6. Shankar Lal v. Asha Devi (2018)SCC OnLine all 2545
7. National Insurance Company Ltd v. Dil Kumari 2018 SCC OnLine HP 665
8. Samrat v. Manish 2018 SCC OnLine MP 833
9. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gurchain Singh 2018 SCC OnLine P&H 2723
10. Shivaji v. United India Insurance Co. 2018 SCC OnLine SC 877
11. National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16, SCC 680
12. National India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Sunita 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 2
13. Vimla Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2018 SCC OnLine SC 2458
14. National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Kamal Kishore 2019 SCC OnLine HP 932
15. Neema v. Sohan Singh 2019 SCC OnLine HP 1805
16. Manjunath v. Mrityunjaya 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 2098
17. Jagdish Lal v. Ram Chander 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 1175
18. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Asha Devi 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 1403
19. Megma Hdi General Ins Co. Ltd. V. Likhama Ram 2019 SCC OnLine Raj 1292
20. National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297
21. Pappu v. Vinod Kumar Lamba (2018) 3 SCC 208
22. Amrit Paul Singh v. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. (2018)7 SCC 558
23. Parwati Devi v. Paramjeet Singh 2019 SCC OnLine Utt 672.
24. Kishan Gopal v. Lala (2014) 1 SCC 244
25. Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (2001) 8 SCC 197
26. Preeti Khetwal v. Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. 2019 SCC OnLine Utt 760
27. National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Balakrishnan (2013) 1 SCC 731
28.Praveen v. Baby Ulhahnan 2020 Bom SCC OnLine Bom 194 ( Kishan Gopal v. Lala (2014)
1 SCC 244
29. Ajit Kumar Karjee v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. FMA 2009 (RD Hattangadi v. Pest Control
( India) P Ltd. (1995) 1 SCC 551.
30. Rambhau v. Shailal 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 935 ( S. Iyyapan v. United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. (2013) 6 Mah L.J 1 and Dyaneshwar v. Raju (2020) 1 Mah LJ 377.
31. Jai Bahadur Subba V. SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. 2024 SCC OnLine Sikk 37 (National
Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Balakrishnan (2013) 1 SCC 731 and New India Assurance Co. v. Asha Rani (2003) 2 SCC 223
32. Passi Lamu Sherpa v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2024 SCC OnLine Sikk 24
33. Chaman Lal v. Murat Ram 2020 SCC OnLine HP 320
34. United India Insurance Co. v. Basavaraj 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 1652. (United India v.
Kalawathi ILR 2001 KAR 2328
35. Asharaf K.A v. Easow T.T. 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 7968
36. Sahana Khatoon v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 3695 (Magma
General Insurance Co. Ltd v. Nanu Ram (2018) 18 SCC 130 )
37. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.v. Nirtanjali Devi Saikia 2021 SCC OnLine Gau 648
38. Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3692
39. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Shalumol 2021 SCC OnLine Ker 3209
40. S. Divya V. P. Ramalingeswar 2021 SCC OnLine Ori 971 (Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra
State Road Transport Corporation )
41. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Private Ltd. v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine
SC 418
42. Jithendran v. The New India Assurance Co., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 983
43. Meena Pawai v. Ashraf Ali 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1083