Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.

Frequently asked questions

Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+

Legal Case Shots is built to help you quickly identify and understand relevant precedent. For citation in pleadings or filings, always verify against the full judgment PDF and current citation format (e.g., 2026 INSC ___).

How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+

The holding is what the court legally decided. The lesson learnt translates that into a practical takeaway: what a lawyer should factor into case strategy or client advice as a result of this precedent.

Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+

Both. Each case shows a distilled summary (case type, key holding, and lesson learnt) and links to the full judgment as a PDF for when you need the complete text for research or citation.

Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+

Yes. Use Advanced Filters to narrow results by decision date and by practice area, including Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Service & Administrative Law, Family Law, Civil Property & Inheritance, and Labour & Industrial Law.

Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+

Yes. You can filter judgments by the judge or bench that decided the case, which is useful for tracking how a particular judge has reasoned on similar issues across multiple rulings.

What is Legal Case Shots?+

Legal Case Shots is a searchable database of Supreme Court of India judgments, each broken down into the case type, the court's key holding, and a practical lesson learnt, with the full judgment available as a PDF for citation or deeper reading.

Motor Accident Compensation LawSupreme Court of India

Abhimanyu Partap Singh vs Namita Sekhon & Anr.

Civil AppealDecided 6 Jul 2022
Civil Appeal No. 4648 of 2022
Indira Banerjee · J.K. Maheshwari

Background

The appellant was five and a half years old, a UKG student, when he suffered a road accident in 1996 that left him with a fractured temporal bone, spinal cord injury, and complete paralysis of his lower limbs, along with loss of bladder/bowel control and speech difficulties, resulting in 100% permanent disability. His parents (a professor and an IAS officer) had expected him to pursue a career like theirs, but his injuries derailed his education, though he eventually qualified as a lawyer. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded him Rs. 9,00,000 in compensation, which the Punjab and Haryana High Court enhanced to Rs. 23,20,000 on appeal; he approached the Supreme Court seeking further enhancement.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that both the Tribunal and High Court had underestimated the claimant's losses by capping items like future loss of earnings (10 years) and attendant charges (20 years) instead of applying the standard "multiplier method" used in personal injury cases, which accounts for age, inflation, and life expectancy. Applying a multiplier of 18 (following its earlier ruling in Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand), the Court recalculated compensation across pecuniary heads (future earning loss, attendant charges, physiotherapy, transportation, and a motorized wheelchair) and non-pecuniary heads (pain, suffering, loss of amenities and marital prospects), arriving at a total of Rs. 51,62,000. After deducting the amount already awarded by the High Court, the Court enhanced the compensation by a further Rs. 28,42,000, with 6.5% annual interest from the date of filing the claim.

Lesson Learnt

In personal injury compensation cases involving permanent disability, courts must use the multiplier method (based on age and life expectancy) rather than arbitrary fixed-year caps, ensuring victims are compensated for the true lifetime impact of their injuries, not just an artificially truncated period.

Abhimanyu Partap Singh vs Namita Sekhon & Anr. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware