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

Master Ayush vs The Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Civil AppealDecided 29 Mar 2022
Civil Appeal Nos. 2205-2206 of 2022

Background

The appellant, a 5-year-old boy at the time, suffered a road accident in 2010 leaving him paraplegic: unable to move his legs, with complete sensory loss, urinary incontinence, and bowel problems, though partial recovery allowed limited mobility using a special orthotic device. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 18,24,000 in compensation, but the High Court reduced this to Rs. 13,46,805 on appeal. The appellant challenged the High Court's reduction as inadequate, particularly on medical expenses, the cost of replacing his mobility device, and conveyance costs.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court found several of the High Court's deductions unjustified. It undercounted actual medical expenses, failed to account for the device needing replacement every five years (warranting cost for two devices, not one), and wrongly rejected taxi/conveyance expenses merely because the taxi driver was not produced as a witness, ignoring the boy's genuine mobility needs. Applying minimum-wage-based multiplier principles (from precedents like National Insurance Co. v. Pranay Sethi and Kajal v. Jagdish Chand) and adding 40% for future prospects, the Court recalculated compensation head-by-head (future loss of earnings, medical expenses, devices, pain and suffering, loss of marriage prospects, attendant charges, and conveyance) arriving at a total of Rs. 49,93,000 with 7.5% interest from the date of filing. Since the appellant is a minor, only Rs. 10 lakh was directed to be released to his father as guardian, with the rest kept in fixed deposits generating monthly interest for his care.

Lesson Learnt

Courts assessing compensation for a child with permanent disability must take a holistic, liberal view of every real-life cost (recurring device replacement, dependable transport, and lost life milestones) rather than mechanically rejecting claims for want of formal proof like producing a taxi driver as a witness.

Master Ayush vs The Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware