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

Nur Ahamad Abdulsab Kanavi v. Abdul Munaf

Civil Appeal · 2025 INSC 191Decided 11 Feb 2025
Civil Appeal No. 2322 of 2025 (arising from SLP(C) No. 21766 of 2024)
Justice Sanjay Karol · Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

Background

The 27-year-old claimant-appellant was struck by a rashly driven goods vehicle while riding his motorcycle in 2014, sustaining injuries that left him bedridden in hospital for two months. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) assessed his disability at 20% and his monthly income at ₹7,500, awarding ₹6,78,000. The Karnataka High Court enhanced his disability to 100% and the compensation to about ₹25.69 lakh, but kept his monthly income at the same ₹7,500 figure. He appealed further, arguing his real income was ₹10,000 per month.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court accepted the oral testimony of the claimant's wife (PW-1) as reliable evidence of his actual income in the absence of documentary proof, relying on its own precedent in Chandra v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav that allows such oral evidence to establish income. It recalculated the entire compensation using the monthly income of ₹10,000, applying the standard formula from National Insurance Co. v. Pranay Sethi (including a 40% future-prospects addition and a multiplier of 17), along with awards for medical expenses, attendant charges, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities. This raised the total compensation to ₹37,51,000, and the appeal was allowed in these terms.

Lesson Learnt

When an accident victim has no documentary proof of income, credible oral testimony from a family member can be relied upon by courts to fix a fair and realistic compensation amount.

Nur Ahamad Abdulsab Kanavi v. Abdul Munaf – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware