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

Raj Kumar Das (D) Thr. LRs. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 541Decided 25 May 2026
C.A. No.-008144-008144 - 2026
Justice Vikram Nath · Justice Sandeep Mehta

Background

In 2004, Raj Kumar Das, a 37-year-old brick-field labourer, was knocked down by a lorry and suffered 100% permanent disability (traumatic paraplegia). He filed a claim under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, but the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissed it in 2007, holding that he had not proved the accident occurred, and the Calcutta High Court affirmed this dismissal in 2022. He died during the pendency of the case and was represented by his legal heirs before the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the lower courts wrongly applied a "proof beyond reasonable doubt" standard instead of the correct "preponderance of probability" standard applicable to these summary, welfare-oriented proceedings, and found the accident and the claimant's injuries were reasonably established. Using its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court departed from the strict formula under Section 163A and computed compensation instead using the broader principles applicable to claims under Section 166 (as laid down in Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi), given the peculiar facts of the case, while clarifying this approach is not to be treated as a precedent. It set aside the Tribunal and High Court judgments, allowed the appeal, and directed the insurer to deposit Rs. 14,90,000/- with 6% interest from the date of filing the claim, within three months.

Lesson Learnt

Motor accident compensation claims are meant to be decided on a lenient "probability" standard, not a strict criminal-style proof standard, and lack of legal awareness by a genuine accident victim should not defeat a just claim once the basic facts are established.

Raj Kumar Das (D) Thr. LRs. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware