Just a moment...

Top
Help
Upgrade to AI Search

We've upgraded AI Search on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:

1. Basic
Quick overview summary answering your query with referencesCategory-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI

2. Advanced
• Includes everything in Basic
Detailed report covering:
     -   Overview Summary
     -   Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars]
     -   Relevant Case Laws
     -   Tariff / Classification / HSN
     -   Expert views from TaxTMI
     -   Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy

• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:

Explore AI Search

Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        1977 (2) TMI 132 - SC - Indian Laws

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Supreme Court enhances compensation for accident victim, criticizes legislative gaps. The Supreme Court dismissed Civil Appeals 1826 of 1968 and 132 of 1969, while allowing Civil Appeal 2310 of 1968 to enhance the compensation claim from ...
                        Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
                          Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.

                              Supreme Court enhances compensation for accident victim, criticizes legislative gaps.

                              The Supreme Court dismissed Civil Appeals 1826 of 1968 and 132 of 1969, while allowing Civil Appeal 2310 of 1968 to enhance the compensation claim from Rs. 60,000 to Rs. 1,00,000 for the appellant Raha. The court found the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal to be grossly inadequate and recalculated it considering future earnings and pensionary benefits of the deceased. The decree for compensation is jointly and severally recoverable from Gupta and Bhuta, with parties bearing their own costs. The court criticized legislative inadequacies in providing adequate compensation for motor accident victims and urged for amendments to the law.




                              Issues Involved:
                              1. Rash and negligent driving leading to fatal motor accidents.
                              2. Determination of compensation by Claims Tribunal.
                              3. Joint and several liabilities of multiple parties.
                              4. Adequacy of compensation awarded.
                              5. Limitation of liability of Insurance Companies under Section 95(2)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
                              6. Legislative inadequacies in providing adequate compensation for motor accident victims.

                              Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

                              1. Rash and negligent driving leading to fatal motor accidents:
                              The judgment begins by highlighting the increase in motor accidents due to rash and negligent driving, which results in the loss of many lives. The court emphasizes the need for laws and statutes to minimize such accidents and provide adequate compensation to the victims' families. The court also mentions the need for serious consideration of creating non-fault liability, given the socio-economic problems faced by the victims' families.

                              2. Determination of compensation by Claims Tribunal:
                              The case involves two claims filed by the appellants for compensation due to the deaths of their husbands in a motor accident. The Claims Tribunal decreed the claim of one appellant to the extent of Rs. 60,000/- and the other to Rs. 40,000/-. The court notes that the Claims Tribunal and the High Court overlooked important factors while determining the compensation, such as the potential future earnings and pensionary benefits of the deceased.

                              3. Joint and several liabilities of multiple parties:
                              The court discusses the appeals filed by various parties against the decision of the Claims Tribunal and the High Court. It is noted that the High Court made the appellant Gupta and Bhuta jointly and severally liable, which the Supreme Court agrees with. The court emphasizes that the pleadings should be interpreted with latitude, considering the low legal literacy of poor people.

                              4. Adequacy of compensation awarded:
                              The court finds that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal was grossly inadequate. The court recalculates the compensation, taking into account the future earnings and pensionary benefits of the deceased, and determines that the appellant Raha was entitled to a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The court criticizes the lower courts for not considering these important factors.

                              5. Limitation of liability of Insurance Companies under Section 95(2)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act:
                              The court points out the inadequacy of Section 95(2)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which limits the liability of Insurance Companies to Rs. 2,000/- in case of third-party deaths. The court finds this limitation to be unreasonable and urges the legislature to amend the law to provide for adequate compensation through Insurance Companies.

                              6. Legislative inadequacies in providing adequate compensation for motor accident victims:
                              The court criticizes the legislature for not addressing the need for adequate compensation for motor accident victims. The court highlights the disparity in compensation awarded to victims of plane accidents versus motor vehicle accidents and calls for a more humane and practical approach in passing statutes like the Motor Vehicles Act. The court hopes that the legislature will take note of these observations and amend the law accordingly.

                              Conclusion:
                              The Supreme Court dismisses Civil Appeals Nos. 1826 of 1968 and 132 of 1969 and allows Civil Appeal No. 2310 of 1968 to the extent that the claim preferred by Raha is enhanced from Rs. 60,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-. The decree will be jointly and severally recoverable from Gupta and Bhuta, subject to any proof of full and final settlement. The parties will bear their own costs in this Court.
                              Full Summary is available for active users!
                              Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                              Topics

                              ActsIncome Tax
                              No Records Found