Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Supreme Court Half Yearly Digest Jan - Jun, 2026

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Conventional Heads – Omission of Filial Consortium – The Tribunal and High Court failed to award any amount under the head of consortium - Held: The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation, and courts must ensure 'just compensation' is awarded even if a legitimate conventional head has been omitted below - The parents of the deceased unmarried son are entitled to filial consortium - Compensation enhanced by Rs. 40,000/- each to both parents (Total Rs. 80,000/-) – Held that the Supreme Court does not ordinarily interfere with concurrent findings of fact returned by the Tribunal and the High Court unless such findings are shown to be perverse, manifestly erroneous, or based on no evidence. [Relied on National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680; Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130; Paras 24-29] Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v. Kalu Ram, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 643 : 2026 INSC 653

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 – Negligence vs. Contributory Negligence – Stationary Vehicle Hazard – A truck was left stationed in the middle of the road at 3:00 a.m. without parking lights, indicators, reflectors, or warning signs - A Wagon-R car rammed into the truck from behind - The driver and owner of the truck did not step into the witness box to substantiate their plea of tyre puncture - Held: The mere fact that a vehicle collides with a truck from behind cannot automatically lead to an inference of negligence or contributory negligence - A stationary vehicle occupying the road in the dead of night without any warning signs poses an evident hazard - In the absence of evidence from the truck driver, the adverse inference drawn by the Tribunal was justified - The proximate cause of the accident was the negligent act of leaving the vehicle unattended on the road without precautionary measures. [Paras 14-18] Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v. Kalu Ram, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 643 : 2026 INSC 653

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 & 168 – Just Compensation – Educational Profile and Future Prospects of a Student – Death of a 20-year-old bachelor pursuing Chartered Accountancy (Final) and undergoing articleship - The Tribunal departed from the actual proved stipend income and assessed the income at Rs. 55,500/- per month by factoring in his professional trajectory, educational progression, and imminent entry into the CA profession – Held that while compensation cannot be founded on pure speculation or salary benchmarks of unrelated professionals, the determination of 'just compensation' does not admit to mathematical exactitude - The forward-looking assessment made by the Tribunal sufficiently accounted for the professional potential of the deceased - Reducing the compensation payable to the parents at this stage on account of a technical overlap in methodology (adding 50% future prospects over a forward-looking multiplicand) would not advance substantive justice given the long passage of time since the accident. [Paras 19- 23] Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v. Kalu Ram, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 643 : 2026 INSC 653

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Computation of Future Prospects — Calculation Error by High Court – Held that When an appellate court enhances the base monthly income of a claimant, the percentage towards future prospects must be calculated on the revised/recalculated income, rather than mechanically applying it to the lower income initially assessed by the Tribunal – Held that the claimant suffered an above-the-knee amputation, he will require continuous medical assistance, rehabilitation, and periodic replacement/maintenance of the prosthesis throughout his lifespan - The compensation under this head enhanced from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 2,00,000/-. [Relied on Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Another, (2011) 1 SCC 343; Paras 14-27] M. Paramesh v. VRL Logistics Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 641 : 2026 INSC 655

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Permanent Disability vs. Functional Disability — Enhancement of Compensation — Amputation of right leg above the knee — Claimant working as a mason — Assessment of loss of earning capacity – Held that while determining compensation in personal injury cases, the physical disability assessed by medical authorities cannot be mechanically equated with the loss of earning capacity or economic loss - The real test is the assessment of functional disability with reference to the specific nature of the avocation, profession, and age of the injured prior to the accident - Application to Case - The appellant, a 30-year-old mason, suffered a 70% physical permanent disability owing to the amputation of his right leg above the knee - The work of a mason is heavily manual and physically demanding, requiring the continuous use and support of both legs - Because of the amputation, the appellant completely lost his capacity to execute his specific livelihood/trade - Restricting his economic loss to 70% based purely on physical disability was unjustified. Consequently, the functional disability must be assessed at 100%. [Paras 20 - 30] M. Paramesh v. VRL Logistics Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 641 : 2026 INSC 655

Constitutional & Administrative Law — Correlative Public Duties of Local Authorities — Maintenance of Pedestrian Infrastructure – The Supreme Court ruled that the fundamental right to walk on demarcated footpaths carries a corresponding, enforceable legal duty upon public authorities - Wherever a road exists, there is a strict public duty to ensure a footpath is demarcated, constructed, and safely maintained - The primary duty-bearers responsible for provisioning and safeguarding this pedestrian infrastructure are Urban Development Authorities, Municipal Corporations, Municipalities, and Panchayats. [Paras 7 - 10] Maniyar Iliyaz Shaik Riyaz v. P. Ayyappan, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 632 : 2026 INSC 647

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 19(1)(d), Article 19(1)(a), Article 19(1)(b), Article 19(1)(c), and Article 21 — Fundamental Right to Walk and Access Demarcated Footpaths — Priority over Motorised Vehicles - The Supreme Court declared that the "Right to Walk" is a fundamental right guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India - It is inextricably connected to life and is integral to the right to move freely throughout the territory of India - This right takes within its sweep the right to safe, comfortable, and well-demarcated footpaths alongside motorised roads, which must be treated as primary and take priority over the movement of motorized vehicles - Walking also embodies expressional, congregational, and associational rights. [Paras 20] Maniyar Iliyaz Shaik Riyaz v. P. Ayyappan, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 632 : 2026 INSC 647

Motor Accident Compensation — Fatal Accident of a Minor Child — Recalculation of Loss of Dependency and Conventional Heads - In assessing the compensation for the death of a 5-year-old child caused by a speeding tanker, the High Court erred in reducing the MACT's award - Applying established legal principles for minor victims, the daily wage was assessed based on the skilled worker rates under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, evaluating annual income with a 40% addition for future prospects and a 50% deduction for personal expenses - Applying a multiplier of 18, the Supreme Court enhanced the total compensation to ₹11,44,628/-, distributed across loss of dependency, consortium, estate, and funeral expenses. [Relied on Karuna Parmar v. Prakash Sinha, 2025 INSC 1244; In Re: Phalodi Accident, 2026 INSC 388; Lucknow Public School, Eldico v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2026 INSC 422; Paras 17-19] Maniyar Iliyaz Shaik Riyaz v. P. Ayyappan, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 632 : 2026 INSC 647

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Statutory Limitations regarding Pedestrian Rights — Regulatory Framework Deficiencies - The Supreme Court observed that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (and its 1939 predecessor) is primarily built around the "vehicle" as its subject, making human/pedestrian interests merely incidental - While the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017 impose general safety duties on drivers regarding vulnerable road users, they fail to recognize the fundamental right to walk or prioritize footpaths over motorized roads - The Parliament has not yet established a full-time regulatory body for motor transport or pedestrian safety under the Act. [Paras 6-14] Maniyar Iliyaz Shaik Riyaz v. P. Ayyappan, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 632 : 2026 INSC 647

Remedies — Restitutionary Remedy vs. Motor Vehicles Act Claims — Independent Action for Rights Violation - The Supreme Court distinguished between claims arising out of motor accidents and the violation of pedestrian rights - If the fundamental right to walk on a demarcated footpath is violated due to the failure of state/local actors, citizens are fully entitled to invoke constitutional remedies or public law restitutionary remedies (such as under Sections 38–40 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963) against the defaulting local bodies - This restitutionary remedy is independent of, and distinct from, any statutory compensation claim made under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. [Paras 15 - 20] Maniyar Iliyaz Shaik Riyaz v. P. Ayyappan, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 632 : 2026 INSC 647

Constitution of India – Article 142 – Complete Justice – Enhancement of Compensation – Permanent Disability – Paraplegia - Even though the claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was not strictly appropriate as the vehicle was not the proximate cause of the accident, the Supreme Court invoked its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 to prevent a person with life-altering, grievous injuries (total paraplegia with bladder and bowel incontinence) from being left in the lurch by another round of litigation - Finding the High Court's assessment technically restrictive and insufficient, the Supreme Court enhanced the total compensation to ₹25,00,000/- with interest from the date of the claim petition, keeping the original apportionment of liability undisturbed to serve the ends of justice. [Paras 12-15] Commissioner, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike v. K.K. Umesh Kumar, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 621 : 2026 INSC 637

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 165(1) & Section 166 – Scope of "Arising out of the use of motor vehicles" – Liability for Natural Calamities / Act of God – Injury caused by the falling of a roadside tree/branch on a stationary vehicle parked to take shelter from rain – Held that for a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act to be maintainable, the motor vehicle itself must play an active role or be part of the proximate cause of the accident - While the term "use" has been liberally interpreted to include stationary or parked vehicles, the mere presence of a victim inside a stationary vehicle where the injury is caused entirely by an external natural event (like a falling tree branch during heavy rain) does not satisfy the requirement of proximate cause under the Act - The vehicle did not play an active role in the accident, as a pedestrian standing under the tree would have faced the same risk - It would be unfair to fasten liability upon the Municipal Corporation under the Motor Vehicles Act for an unfortunate natural occurrence that was not within the contemplation of the authorities. [Paras 10-13] Commissioner, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike v. K.K. Umesh Kumar, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 621 : 2026 INSC 637

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Inordinate Institutional Delay in Motor Accident Claims — Guidelines for Expediting Claim Disposals — Adoptions of Summary Procedure – The Supreme Court took serious note of the regular feature of systemic, decades-long delay in the adjudication of motor accident claims at the High Court and Tribunal levels, noting an average pendency of 8 years in High Courts and 6 years in Tribunals - Since the Act is a piece of beneficial legislation, long pendency directly denudes its salutary values - Procedural Directives Issued – i. Mandatory Annexures with Claim Petitions - To eliminate repeated adjournments, claimants must strictly accompany petitions with explicit official proof of age (excluding Aadhaar card), formal disability certificates detailing functional impairment from competent doctors, authentic ITRs/salary slips for income claims, and certified medical bills; ii. Listing and Bench Management - Chief Justices of High Courts are requested to issue directives to list matters pending over four years based strictly on chronological order of institution and evaluate increasing the number of MACT roster benches; iii. Summary Procedure Enforcement - Under Section 169 of the Act, Tribunals are encouraged to adopt summary procedures to accelerate expediency - If a Tribunal chooses not to adopt a summary procedure, it must explicitly record reasons for the same. [Relied on Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, (2001) 8 SCC 197; Arun Kumar Agrawal v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2010) 9 SCC 218; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680; Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130; Paras 19-24] Shishupal @ Shish Ram v. Surjeet, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 617 : 2026 INSC 634

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Introduction of "Loss of Domestic Care" as a Distinct Head - clarified that while 'Loss of Consortium' exclusively addresses the emotional aspects of loss (love, affection, companionship) under the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi, it fails to properly account for the economic lens of domestic contribution - To mitigate this systemic undervaluing, the Court directed that where a case involves the death of a homemaker, a composite sum of Rs.30,000/- per month shall be added under the head of 'Loss of Domestic Care' as a stand-in basic minimum monthly income (provided structural domestic conditions are met) - In cases where the homemaker is also part of the formal workforce, this component shall be in addition to their proven monthly income - This determination is subject to a 10% cumulative revision every three years. [Paras 12 - 20] Shishupal @ Shish Ram v. Surjeet, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 617 : 2026 INSC 634

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 & Section 168 — Just and Fair Compensation — Death of a Homemaker — Valuation of Unpaid Domestic and Caregiving Labour — Concepts of 'Loss of Consortium' vs. 'Loss of Domestic Care' — The Supreme Court introduced a new specific head called "Loss of Domestic Care" to overcome the inherent disadvantage faced by homemakers due to overly conservative notional income estimations – i. The Status of a Homemaker – Supreme Court observed that it is ironic to describe a homemaker as dependent on earning members when the household's functioning depends substantially on them - Elevating the terminology from "housewife" to "homemaker" and ultimately recognizing them as "Nation Builders", the Supreme Court emphasized that a homemaker's contribution is critical to human capital formation, social stability, and economic productivity. Shishupal @ Shish Ram v. Surjeet, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 617 : 2026 INSC 634

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Claim Petition — Double Benefit / Deduction of Ex-gratia Financial Assistance — Interplay with State Welfare Rules — Eligibility of Mother as a Dependent – i. Deduction of Financial Assistance under Service Rules – held that the High Court was fully justified in deducting the ex-gratia financial assistance amount receivable by the eligible dependents under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 from the total compensation assessed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The component of "loss of income" or "pay and allowances" cannot be paid a second time to the claimants, as it would exceed the actual pecuniary loss suffered and operate as a financial windfall/windfall profit; ii. Independent Entitlement of a Dependent Mother - While statutory rules must be strictly interpreted, courts cannot lose sight of the paramount object of social welfare legislations, which is to award just and adequate compensation to all dependents - Under the Haryana Pension Scheme of 1964 (read with the 2006 Rules), a dependent parent is ineligible for ex-gratia financial assistance if the deceased employee leaves behind a widow or children - this statutory ineligibility under service rules does not diminish or negate the independent legal injury suffered by the mother under the Motor Vehicles Act; iii. Prevention of Unjust Enrichment by Insurer - Setting off the entire financial assistance amount against the collective pool of compensation thereby depriving a dependent mother of her rightful share under the head of loss of dependency amounts to an illegal and unjust enrichment of the Insurance Company at the cost of a dependent parent - The mother's distinct share ( share of the total loss of dependency) cannot be set off or consumed by the service benefits paid exclusively to the widow and daughter. [Relied on Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Shashi Sharma and Others, (2016) 9 SCC 627; Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121; State of Haryana and Another v. Jasbir Kaur and Others, (2003) 7 SCC 484; Ram Kala Devi v. State of Haryana and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 12159; Paras 15-25] Sarla Devi v. Reliance General Insurance Company, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 578 : 2026 INSC 575

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 21 — Right to Life — Right to Trauma Care and Road Safety — Interim Directions for Uniform Trauma Care System — The Supreme Court issued comprehensive time-bound interim directions to the Union and all States/UTs i. Full technical and operational integration of all emergency helplines (100, 101, 108, etc.) into the universal helpline 112 within three months; ii. Establishment of functional physical and digital Good Samaritan Grievance Redressal Systems within three months; iii. Notification of a medical rescue protocol by the Union within three months, to be operationalized by States/UTs within three months thereafter; iv. Mandatory Automotive Industry Standard 125 (AIS-125) compliance and GPS/Vehicle Location Tracking Device (VLTD) fitment in all public and private ambulances, integrated with helpline 112 within three months; v. Adoption of the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professionals (NCAHP) notified Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) curriculum within three months; vi. Establishment of State Trauma Registries within four months; vii. Grading and designation of all medical facilities across National/State Highways and urban areas within three months; viii. Full operationalization of the PM RAHAT cashless treatment scheme for road accident victims within three months, failing which it would amount to a violation of the Motor Vehicles Act; ix. Execution of multi-lingual mass-media campaigns within one month. [Relied on Savelife Foundation v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 194; Paras 5-12] Savelife Foundation v. Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 556

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 21 — Right to Life — Right to Trauma Care and Road Safety — The right to trauma care of citizens is an integral part of the right to life enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India - A robust, uniform, and swift mechanism for emergency trauma care is critical to recognizing and responding to road accident situations to save human lives - Bystanders often hesitate to act due to fear of legal proceedings or police harassment - Systemic interventions, uniform frameworks, and proper Good Samaritan laws are required to eliminate these barriers. Savelife Foundation v. Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 556

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 166 and 168 — Deductibility of Mediclaim/Medical Insurance from Motor Accident Compensation — The question of law arose whether the amount of money received by a claimant as Mediclaim, in terms of a medical insurance policy, is deductible from the compensation awarded by a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) for medical expenses incurred due to an accident - The Supreme Court held that the amount received as part of a Mediclaim/medical insurance policy is strictly not deductible from the compensation calculated by the concerned Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act (MVA), even if compensation under the head of medical expenses is specifically claimed - Key Principles Articulated by the Supreme Court – i. Statutory Entitlement vs. Contractual Benefit - A statutory benefit under the MVA flows from the authority of law and serves a broader public welfare purpose, whereas a contractual benefit like a Mediclaim policy flows from a private agreement supported by independent premium considerations - These two entitlements operate in separate domains and stand on completely different footings; ii. No "Double Benefit" or Unjust Enrichment - Receiving both payments does not amount to an impermissible "double benefit" or unjust enrichment - The contractual insurance reimbursement is merely the fruit of hard-earned money voluntarily parted with by the claimant in the past in the form of premiums to guard against life's uncertainties; iii. No Windfall for Tortfeasors/Insurers - Allowing a deduction of Mediclaim benefits would result in an unjust and undue advantage to the insurer of the offending vehicle or the tortfeasor, effectively letting them escape liability under the head of medical expenses solely because the claimant had the prudence to secure independent insurance coverage; iv. Different Yardsticks - A Mediclaim policy is strictly capped by a monetary limit defined by the contract, whereas the guiding yardstick under the MVA is the beneficial principle of just and fair compensation, which carries no strict monetary limits. [Relied on Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra SRTC (1999) 1 SCC 9; United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan (2002) 6 SCC 281; Paras 9-15] New India Assurance Company v. Dolly Satish Gandhi, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 504 : 2026 INSC 498

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 & 173 — Motor Accident Claim — Enhancement of Compensation — 100% Permanent Disability of a 14-year-old Minor Pillion Rider - Notional Income Evaluation - The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in fixing the minor claimant's notional annual income at a low rate of ₹30,000/- The notional income must be determined based on the prevailing minimum wages admissible for a skilled workman in the state at the time of the accident - Since the minimum wages for a skilled workman in Rajasthan in 2016 were ₹5,746/- per month, Supreme Court rounded it off to ₹5,800/- per month (amounting to ₹69,600/- annually) - After adding 40% for future prospects and applying a multiplier of 18, the loss of income was enhanced to ₹17,53,920/- Supreme Court modified the meager attendant charges of ₹1,21,800/- awarded by the High Court - Pointing out that the minor appellant suffered 100% permanent disability and requires the continuous assistance of two attendants round the clock for the rest of his life, computed the charges using the minimum wages of a semi-skilled workman (₹5,000/- per month per attendant) - Applying a multiplier of 18, the Court enhanced the attendant charges to ₹21,60,000/- To secure the minor's future, the Court directed that 25% of this amount be released immediately, while the remaining 75% be kept in a fixed deposit, with ₹1,50,000/- released annually to earn continuous interest - Supreme Court significantly enhanced compensation under alternative heads to meet the ends of justice: ₹10,000,00/- for mental pain, suffering, and loss of amenities; ₹3,00,000/- for future medical expenses; ₹3,00,000/- for loss of marriage prospects; and ₹1,00,000/- for special diet and transportation, bringing the total modified compensation to ₹56,83,663/- with 6% interest per annum. [Relied on Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Others, 2020 INSC 135; Paras 8-11] Hansraj v. Mukesh Nath, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 468 : 2026 INSC 454

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Adjudication of Claims – Non-adjudication of Framed Issues – Validity of Driving Licence – Adverse Inference – Despite a specific issue being framed regarding whether the bus driver possessed a valid and effective driving licence, the Tribunal declined to adjudicate it on merits simply because it found the driver not responsible for the accident - The High Court also failed to return any finding on this material issue or address the fact that the driver did not enter the witness box despite filing a written statement - Held, once an issue is framed, it is incumbent upon the adjudicating forum to record a finding thereon, supported by reasons, as it bears directly upon the determination of liability and the rights of the parties - Non-adjudication of such a vital aspect amounts to an incomplete adjudication and undermines the legality of the award - This aspect assumed greater significance as the claimants explicitly pleaded that the driver was undergoing training under a senior driver at the relevant time - The impugned judgments set aside and the matter remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. [Paras 25 – 34] Parmila v. Rajender, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 433 : 2026 INSC 420

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Adjudication of Claims – Determination of Negligence – Head-on Collision – Contributory Negligence – The Supreme Court expressed perplexity at the findings of the Tribunal and the High Court which completely absolved the bus driver (Respondent No. 1) of even any contributory negligence, placing the entire blame on the deceased car driver - Held, in motor accident cases, the determination of negligence must be founded upon a balanced and objective assessment of the conduct of all parties involved, particularly where the circumstances suggest a possible sharing of responsibility - The complete exclusion of contributory negligence in a head-on collision ordinarily warrants a careful scrutiny of the surrounding circumstances, including the manner of driving, the point of impact, and other attendant factors - The absence of a reasoned and comparative analysis of the respective actions of both drivers renders the conclusions susceptible to doubt. [Paras 23 - 26] Parmila v. Rajender, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 433 : 2026 INSC 420

Maintenance – Computation and Jurisprudential Basis – Principles of Restitutio in Integrum - The Supreme Court examined the jurisprudential framework for computing and awarding compensation under the head of "Prosthetic Limb" in motor accident cases - Emphasizing the mandate of Section 168 to determine "just compensation", Supreme Court reiterated that while damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations or expected to be a windfall, they must represent equitability, fairness, and reasonableness, avoiding a pittance - Key Principles Established by the Court- i. Standard Formula for Prosthetic Replacement - Following its prior ruling in Chandra Mogera v. Santosh A. Ganachari & Anr. (2025) and Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain v. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (2022), the Court recognized a block of five (5) years as the reasonable replacement period for a prosthetic limb, with an assumed maximum life expectancy of 70 years for the claimant; ii. Governmental Rates Not Binding - The Court categorically rejected the abysmally low pricing slabs prescribed under Government Notifications - Grounded in the principle of restitutio in integrum (restoring the injured party to their original position as far as money can buy) , held that if the treatment or device chosen by the claimant is reasonable to meet their needs, the insurer/respondent cannot compel them to accept cheaper options or government-subsidized alternatives; iii. Requirement of Price Quotations - Supreme Court reiterated the mandatory directive from Chandra Mogera (supra)that any future claim for compensation under the head of a prosthetic/artificial limb must be accompanied by genuine price quotations from at least two or three service providers to enable tribunals to make an informed, actual cost assessment; iv. Assessment of Income Without Documentary Evidence - Relying on Ramachandrappa (2011) and Syed Sadiq (2014), the Court held that a claim for monthly income cannot be rejected merely due to a lack of documentary evidence if the claimed amount is reasonable considering the specific strata of income, year of the accident, and nature of employment (e.g., heavy vehicle driver). [Relied on Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2014) 2 SCC 735; Chandra Mogera v. Santosh A. Ganachari & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 12183/2025); Paras 25-35] Prahlad Sahai v. Haryana Roadways, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 407 : 2026 INSC 396

Road Safety Directions – Parking and Encroachment – i. Prohibition on Unauthorized Parking: Heavy/commercial vehicles prohibited from parking on any National Highway carriageway or paved shoulder except at designated bays - Enforcement mandated via Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS), GPS-timestamped evidence, and eChallans; ii. Encroachment Removal: Construction of new commercial structures within the Right of Way (ROW) prohibited with immediate effect - District Magistrates directed to remove existing unauthorized structures within 60 days; iii. Land Use Restrictions: State Governments to notify prohibition of land use change within 40 metres (residential) and 75 metres (commercial) from the highway mid-point; iv. Emergency Services: Deployment of BLS ambulances and recovery cranes at intervals not exceeding 75 km within 60 days; v. Wayside Amenities: Construction of truck lay-byes every 75 km, prioritized on the Amritsar-Jamnagar Highway - Amenities must include rest areas, food services, and first-aid; vi. Blackspots: Identification and publication of accident blackspots within 45 days, followed by installation of high-intensity LED lighting and speed cameras; vii. District Highway Safety Task Force: Constitution of task forces in every district within 15 days to conduct fortnightly reviews; viii. Monitoring: NHAI to conduct drone-based aerial surveys at least twice annually - MoRTH to report on the constitution of an Inter-State Highway Safety Coordination Committee within 60 days. [Relied on Gyan Prakash vs. Union of India and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1189; Paras 4-8] In Re: Phalodi Accident, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 391 : 2026 INSC 388

Constitution of India – Article 21 and Article 142 – Right to Life and Safe Passage – Road Safety and Infrastructure Failures – Supreme Court took suo-motu cognizance of systemic negligence following fatal accidents in Phalodi (Rajasthan) and Rangareddy (Telangana) - Held: The 'Right to Life' under Article 21 is a positive mandate for the State to ensure a safe environment - Safety of commuters is an integral facet of the right to live with dignity - Recognizing that National Highways account for nearly 30% of road fatalities despite being only 2% of total road length, the Court issued comprehensive interim directions under Article 142 to address administrative lethargy and infrastructural gaps. In Re: Phalodi Accident, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 391 : 2026 INSC 388

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — High Court's Error — Noted that the High Court of Bombay at Goa erred in dismissing the Insurance Company's appeal as "not maintainable" and refusing to hear arguments on the quantum of compensation - The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and remitted the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration on the issue of quantum. [Relied on United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shila Datta & Ors., (2011) ACJ 2729; Paras 12-16] National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Gauri Gurudas Gaonkar, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 348

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 149(2), Section 166, and Section 170 — Right of Insurer to contest on merits — Maintainability of Appeal — The Supreme Court held that when an Insurance Company is impleaded as a party-respondent in a claim petition (rather than merely being a noticee), it has the right to contest the claim on all available grounds, including the quantum of compensation, without being restricted to the limited grounds specified under Section 149(2) of the Act – Supreme Court clarified that if the insurer is already a respondent, it does not require the permission of the Tribunal under Section 170 to raise such additional grounds. National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Gauri Gurudas Gaonkar, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 348

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Future Prospects – Permanent Employee aged 50-60 years – Held: As per the settled legal position, an addition of 15% toward future prospects is mandated for a permanent salaried employee within the age bracket of 50-60 years – Noted that the High Court's grant of 10% was erroneous as the deceased was a 59-year-old railway employee - Held: It is a settled proposition of law that the Court or Tribunal is not barred from awarding more compensation than what is claimed, provided the awarded amount is "just and reasonable". [Relied on Sarla Verma and Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121; National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others (2017) 16 SCC 680; Helen C. Rebello and others vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another (1999) 1 SCC 90; Paras 25-30] Sushila v. Sudhakar, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 343

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Just Compensation – Calculation of Notional Income – Deductions based on remaining years of service – Held: Any deduction in income based on the proximity of the deceased to retirement is impermissible in law - The Supreme Court set aside the findings of the Tribunal and the High Court, which had deducted 50% of the deceased's salary because he had only six months of service remaining - Compensation must be calculated based on the "annual" income of the deceased using the last drawn salary to ensure uniformity and consistency. [Para 22] Sushila v. Sudhakar, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 343

Motor Vehicle Accidents - Forged or Fabricated Insurance Policy - Obligation of Insurance Companies to report forged policies - When an Insurance Company discovers that a motor insurance policy is forged or fabricated and cannot be acted upon, it is incumbent upon it to lodge a complaint with the police. Failure to do so reflects lack of due diligence and may suggest connivance. National Insurance Company Limited v. K. Saravanan, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 339

Motor Vehicle Accidents - Forged or Fabricated Insurance Policy Public Funds & Vigilance - Insurance companies deal with substantial public funds and are under a corresponding duty to act with responsibility and vigilance while handling claims arising out of motor vehicle accidents. National Insurance Company Limited v. K. Saravanan, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 339

Motor Vehicle Accidents - Forged or Fabricated Insurance Policy - Registration of Criminal Case - A fresh FIR is to be registered. Officers of the Insurance Company who were aware of the fraud and were posted in the concerned branch at the relevant time shall be arrayed as accused. National Insurance Company Limited v. K. Saravanan, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 339

Motor Vehicle Accidents - Forged or Fabricated Insurance Policy - SIT Probe Ordered - The Supreme Court directed the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate the fabrication of the insurance policy in question. National Insurance Company Limited v. K. Saravanan, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 339

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 2(30) and 147 – Requisition of Vehicle for Election Duty – Determination of Liability – Whether the registered owner/insurer or the requisitioning authority (State) is liable for compensation in case of an accident involving a vehicle requisitioned under statutory orders - Held: When a public authority requisitions a privately owned vehicle for public purposes (such as Gram Panchayat Elections), the nature of possession and control changes entirely - The registered owner is divested of custody and decision-making power, and the vehicle is placed at the disposal of the State for governmental functions – Held that the requisitioning authority assumes the role of the "owner" for the period of requisition. District Magistrate v. National Insurance Company, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 280 : 2026 INSC 279

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Shifting of Liability from Insurer to State – The insurance policy obtained by the owner covers "regular and lawful use" in the ordinary course - Compelled deployment under statutory command cannot be characterized as "regular use" within the usual contemplation of the insurance contract - To fasten liability on the insurer for risks generated exclusively by governmental action would be to extend the contract beyond the agreed risk - responsibility for accidents occurring during the requisition period rests with the requisitioning authority (State) and not the insurer – Although Section 160 of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1950, does not expressly authorize requisitioning manpower, if the authority utilizes the services of the driver provided with the vehicle, it implicitly recognizes the driver's competence to operate the vehicle under its control - The liability remains with the State even if the driver is an employee of the original owner, as the driver operates under official directions during the requisition period. [Relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepa Devi (2008) 1 SCC 414; Purnya Kala Devi v. State of Assam (2014) 14 SCC 142; Paras 8-12] District Magistrate v. National Insurance Company, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 280 : 2026 INSC 279

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Assessment of Disability and Loss of Earning Capacity – Functional Disability vs. Physical Disability – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision to reduce the functional disability of the appellant-claimant from 63% to 30% - held that the High Court failed to provide cogent reasons for disregarding the Medical Board's certificate and the neuropsychological report which evidenced severe cognitive impairment, partial blindness, and intellectual disability resulting from a head injury - Noted that for a professional like a Manager, whose role depends on memory and analytical skills, such neurological deficits lead to a profound erosion of faculties essential for employment - the Supreme Court enhanced the functional disability to 100% for the purpose of computing compensation - Supreme Court increased the compensation from ₹35.61 lakh (as fixed by the Madras High Court) to ₹97.73 lakh, restoring and expanding the approach adopted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT). [Paras 21 - 30] R. Halle v. Reliance General Insurance Company, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 261 : 2026 INSC 260 : AIR 2026 SC 1511

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Duties of Appellate Courts – When an appellate court interferes with the findings of fact recorded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), especially regarding disability assessment, it must undertake a thorough reappreciation of evidence and assign clear, convincing reasons - Mechanical reductions of compensation without independent analysis of medical records are not sustainable in law – Appeal allowed. [Relied on Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343; Paras 22 - 35] R. Halle v. Reliance General Insurance Company, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 261 : 2026 INSC 260 : AIR 2026 SC 1511

Motor accident compensation — Procedural Lapses — Non-joinder of driver — Held: The provision for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial piece of legislation intended to enhance social justice, the rigours of procedure, such as not adding a driver as a party, cannot be allowed to defeat the purpose of the Act, especially as the trial is summary in nature. [Relied on Helen C. Rebello & Ors. Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (1999) 1 SCC 90; Sebastiani Lakra vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2019) 17 SCC 465; United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Patricia Jean Mahajan & Ors. (2002) 6 SCC 281; Paras 12-17] Managing Director, KSRTC v. P. Chandramouli, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 245 : 2026 INSC 241 : AIR 2026 SC 1441

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Compensation — Deduction of Group Insurance Scheme (GIS) benefits — Held: Amounts received by the dependents of a deceased under an employer-provided group insurance scheme or other contractual/social security benefits cannot be deducted from the compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act - These benefits arise from an independent contractual relationship and lack the requisite nexus with the statutory compensation payable for death in a motor vehicle accident - The principle of balancing loss and gain cannot be invoked to diminish the statutory entitlement to "just compensation." [Paras 14 - 16] Managing Director, KSRTC v. P. Chandramouli, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 245 : 2026 INSC 241 : AIR 2026 SC 1441

No-Fault Liability – Principle and International Precedent – Supreme Court emphasized that requiring proof of negligence through civil courts or consumer fora imposes an "onerous burden" on families in complex scientific matters - Relying on the principle of no-fault liability (similar to Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988), Supreme Court noted that global jurisdictions, including Australia, the UK, and Japan, have implemented dedicated COVID-19 vaccine injury compensation schemes - Supreme Court declined to appoint an independent medical board, finding the existing National and State AEFI Committees adequate for scientific assessment - it reaffirmed the state's duty to maintain transparent surveillance and ensure AEFI data is accessible in the public domain. [Relied on Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India (2022 SCC OnLine SC 533); In re: Distribution of Essential Supplies and Services During Pandemic (2021 SCC OnLine SC 372); Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India (W.P.(C) No. 539/2021); Paras 27-37] Rachana Gangu v. Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 225 : 2026 INSC 218

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 173 – Compensation – Deduction of Compassionate Financial Assistance – Haryana Compassionate Assistance to Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 – Rule 5 – The Supreme Court reiterated that financial assistance received under the 2006 Rules which directly replaces "pay and allowances" (loss of income) must be deducted from the compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act to prevent double recovery - components such as family pension, life insurance, and provident fund are not deductible as they do not correspond to the specific head of loss of income. Reliance General Insurance v. Kanika, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 196 : 2026 INSC 188 : AIR 2026 SC 1188

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Procedural Safeguards for Deductions – Proof of Receipt – Deductions from MVA compensation cannot be made based on mere assumptions of eligibility - The Tribunal must first determine the full compensation; claimants must then file an affidavit/declaration regarding the receipt of benefits under the 2006 Rules before the executing court - Adjustments to prevent double recovery are to be made only after receipt is established – Appeals allowed. [Relied on Reliance General Insurance v. Shashi Sharma (2016) 9 SCC 627; Jayalakshmi Coelho v. Oswald Joseph Coelho (2001) 4 SCC 181; State of Punjab v. Darshan Singh (2004) 1 SCC 328; Paras on 6, 7, 8] Reliance General Insurance v. Kanika, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 196 : 2026 INSC 188 : AIR 2026 SC 1188

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 147 — Liability of Insurer — Gratuitous Passenger in Goods Vehicle — "Pay and Recover" Principle — The Supreme Court restored the Tribunal's order directing the Insurance Company to first pay the compensation to the claimants and subsequently recover the same from the vehicle owner – Noted that the deceased had hired a tempo primarily to transport a Ganesh idol for immersion, making the act of travelling incidental to the transport of goods - In such circumstances, the deceased is treated as a gratuitous passenger travelling with his goods - Supreme Court distinguished this from cases where a vehicle is hired solely for passenger travel, reaffirming that the benevolent object of the Act justifies the "pay and recover" direction even when the insurer is not otherwise liable under the policy – Appeal allowed. [Relied on Manuara Khatun & Ors. v. Rajesh Kumar Singh & Ors. (2017) 4 SCC 796; National Insurance Company Limited v. Saju P. Paul & Anr. (2013) 2 SCC 41; Paras 10-13] Kaminiben v. Oriental Insurance, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 174

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 173 — Appeal against Award — Dismissal on ground of Undertaking — Legality of — High Court dismissed the Insurance Company's appeal merely because a local manager had given an undertaking to the Executing Court to satisfy the award - Held: An undertaking to comply with an award, often given under pressure of execution proceedings (such as attachment of office furniture), does not deprive the insurer of its statutory right to challenge the award on merits - The High Court, as the First Appellate Court, is duty-bound to consider the appeal on both law and facts, especially when patent errors in compensation calculation are alleged - Dismissed an appeal without touching the merits caused grave injustice. National Insurance Company Ltd v. Rathlavath Chandulal, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 149 : 2026 INSC 146

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 and 168 – Just Compensation – Future Prospects – Held: The addition of future prospects to the established income of the deceased is not a matter of judicial discretion but a mandatory legal requirement. For a deceased who was self-employed or on a fixed salary and below the age of 40 years, an addition of 40% towards future prospects is compulsory. The High Court erred in failing to apply this binding precedent. [Relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680; Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121; Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram (2018) 18 SCC 130; Paras 17, 18, 19] V. Pathmavathi v. Bharthi Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 132 : 2026 INSC 131 : AIR 2026 SC 840

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Quantum of Compensation – Evidence of Income – Salary Certificate – Held: Determination of income must be founded on proof placed on record and cannot rest on conjecture. Where a salary certificate (Exhibit P-14) and corroborating employer affidavit (PW-3) establish a fixed monthly salary, it is impermissible for courts to assess income at a lower figure without evidence impeaching such documents - Held: Considering the dependents had been pursuing legal proceedings for 15 years since the death of the victim in 2011, the Court enhanced the interest rate to 9% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition till realization. [Para 32] V. Pathmavathi v. Bharthi Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 132 : 2026 INSC 131 : AIR 2026 SC 840

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Conventional Heads – Loss of Consortium vs. Loss of Love and Affection – Subsumption of Heads – Held: Compensation in death cases is restricted to three conventional heads: loss of estate, loss of consortium, and funeral expenses. "Loss of love and affection" is not a distinct head of compensation and is comprehended within the broader head of "consortium," which encompasses spousal, parental, and filial consortium. [Paras 22 - 29] V. Pathmavathi v. Bharthi Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 132 : 2026 INSC 131 : AIR 2026 SC 840

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Section 2(28) — Gujarat Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958; Section 3 — Constitution of India; Seventh Schedule, List II, Entry 57 — Taxability of Heavy Earth Moving Machinery/Construction Equipment Vehicles - The Supreme Court held that heavy earth moving machinery and construction equipment vehicles (such as Dumpers, Loaders, Excavators, etc.) designed for off-road use within factory or enclosed premises are excluded from the definition of "motor vehicle" under the second part of Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Supreme Court made following findings- i. Definition of Motor Vehicle: While such vehicles may fall under the inclusive first part of Section 2(28), they are specifically excluded by the second part of the definition, which omits "a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises"; ii. Constitutional Limitation: Entry 57 of List II of the Seventh Schedule only permits states to tax vehicles "suitable for use on roads”- Noted that if a vehicle is designed for off-road operations and does not derive benefit from public road infrastructure, it cannot be burdened with motor vehicle tax; iii. Gujarat Tax Act Deficiency: noted that Schedule I of the Gujarat Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958, mentions construction equipment vehicles but prescribes no corresponding rate of tax for them - no tax can be levied or collected from such vehicles; iv. Status of Registration: Merely because such vehicles are registered under the Act does not estop the owner from challenging the liability to pay road tax if the vehicles do not ply on public roads – Appeal allowed. [Relied on Bolani Ores Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1974) 2 SCC 777; Tarachand Logistic Solutions Limited vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1851; Paras 37-39, 42-45, 55] Ultratech Cement Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 27 : 2026 INSC 43