#no fault liability

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has affirmed that under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, legal representatives of a deceased victim - including adult, non-dependent sons - are entitled to compensation without needing to prove financial dependency. This ruling reinforces the Supreme Court’s precedent in National Insurance Co. v. Birender, expanding access to no-fault compensation beyond traditional notions of economic loss and protecting the rights of all statutory claimants.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that claimants may amend their motor accident compensation petition from a fault-based claim under Section 166 to a no-fault claim under Section 163-A even after evidence closure and during final arguments. This reinforces the welfare-oriented purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act, ensuring victims’ families are not penalized for technical pleading errors at the last stage of litigation.

Gauhati HC rules that motor accident claims pending under Section 163A MV Act must be adjudicated under Section 164’s ₹5 lakh lump-sum limit, even for accidents pre-dating the 2022 amendment. The judgment excludes additional heads like consortium, aligning with Supreme Court precedent to cap compensation uniformly.

Bombay High Court holds that absence of a recovered ticket does not negate bonafide passenger status under Section 124-A of the Railways Act. Accidental falls from trains qualify as 'untoward incidents,' entitling dependents to compensation, even without physical proof of ticket. The ruling reinforces strict liability for railways in passenger safety cases.

The Bombay High Court ruled that a passenger who loses their ticket but was legitimately traveling remains a bonafide passenger under the Railways Act, making the railway liable for compensation in case of accidental fall from a train. This affirms strict liability for untoward incidents regardless of ticket possession, significantly expanding access to compensation for vulnerable travelers.

Madhya Pradesh High Court rules that a borrower of a vehicle is deemed an 'owner' under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, entitling survivors to Rs. 1,00,000 compensation with 6% interest from the filing date. The ruling clarifies insurance liability extends to borrowers even in the absence of formal ownership transfer, reinforcing no-fault liability protections for accident victims.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, interest on compensation must accrue from the date the claim application is filed, regardless of delays in paying court fees or resolving procedural objections. This protects claimants from penalization for administrative or financial delays and reinforces the Act’s social welfare intent by ensuring timely compensation is not undermined by technicalities.

Bombay HC Nagpur Bench rules that compensation under Section 163-A MV Act must strictly adhere to the Second Schedule, irrespective of fault or FIR status. The judgment overturns tribunal discretion, reinforcing no-fault liability for motor accident claims and binding insurers to statutory compensation norms.

Andhra Pradesh High Court rules that claims under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act are barred if the deceased’s annual income exceeds Rs.40,000, limiting compensation strictly to the Second Schedule without future prospects or enhancements. This decision impacts no-fault liability claims, reinforcing structured compensation norms for higher-income victims.

The Bombay High Court reaffirmed that under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, insurers cannot evade liability by alleging victim negligence. Compensation is determined solely by the Second Schedule, making this a no-fault liability regime. This ruling reinforces the absolute obligation of insurers to pay structured compensation regardless of contributory factors.

Punjab & Haryana HC rules that victims of grievous injuries in motor accidents prior to 2019 are entitled to ₹2.5 lakh compensation under Section 164 MV Act, regardless of negligence proof. The court applies the Supreme Court's Ram Murti precedent retrospectively, ensuring statutory compensation for all qualifying claimants.

Bombay High Court reiterates that under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, compensation claims cannot be denied based on the deceased's alleged negligence. The ruling mandates fresh adjudication of claims in line with Supreme Court precedent, ensuring no-fault liability principles prevail in motor accident compensation cases.

Punjab & Haryana HC rules that the enhanced Rs. 5,00,000 no-fault compensation under Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act applies to deaths occurring before the 2019 amendment, entitling claimants to the higher amount even if their claims were filed under Section 163-A. This decision aligns with the precedent in Ram Murti v. Punjab SEB, reinforcing retrospective application of beneficial provisions in motor accident compensation cases.

Punjab & Haryana HC rules that claimants are entitled to ₹5,00,000 under Section 164 MV Act as a statutory welfare benefit, irrespective of delayed FIR registration or failure to prove negligence. The judgment clarifies that no-fault liability applies retrospectively, ensuring compensation even in pending cases with procedural lapses.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that strict liability under the Electricity Act, 2003 overrides humanitarian compensation policies, awarding Rs.99.94 lakh to a six-year-old electrocution victim. The judgment includes compensation for future prospects, attendant care, and loss of marriage prospects, setting a precedent for full reparation in public utility liability cases involving children.