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

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Priyanka Das

Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 950Decided 3 Sept 2026
C.A. No.-012085-012085 - 2026 (with connected C.A. Nos. 12086, 12087-12088 and 12089 of 2026)
Justice S.V.N. Bhatti · Justice N.V. Anjaria

Background

On 10 April 2011, Sushant Prabhakaran was riding a motorcycle with Priyanka Das as pillion rider when a speeding truck hit them; Prabhakaran fell under the truck's wheels and died instantly, while Das suffered grievous injuries including total blindness and a permanent colostomy. Two separate compensation claims arose from the same accident: one by the deceased's parents and Das over his death, and one by Das over her own injuries. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the Punjab and Haryana High Court awarded compensation in both claims, but the insurer (Reliance General) and the claimants cross-appealed to the Supreme Court over the quantum, the multiplier used, and whether Das qualified as the deceased's legally wedded wife for apportionment purposes.

Decision Breakdown

On the death claim, the Court upheld the multiplier of 16 based on the deceased's age (33), following settled precedent that the multiplier tracks the deceased's age, not the dependents'. It declined to disturb the finding that Das was not proven to be the legally wedded wife (no documentary proof of marriage), and dismissed the insurer's appeals while leaving the High Court's compensation figure intact. On the injury claim, the Court ordered a fresh medical evaluation by a Government hospital board, which found Das had suffered 100% permanent physical impairment (total blindness plus permanent stoma). Applying this finding, the Court raised her functional disability assessment from the High Court's 80% to 100%, recalculated future income loss using a 16 multiplier and 50% future prospects addition, and enhanced her total compensation to approximately Rs. 3.77 crore with 7.5% interest, allowing her appeal in part while dismissing the insurer's appeal.

Lesson Learnt

In motor accident claims, courts apply the multiplier based on the deceased's or victim's age under a fixed, standardised table, and functional disability for compensation purposes is measured by real-world loss of earning capacity in the open market, not merely by the fact that an employer has accommodated the victim in their existing job.

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Priyanka Das – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware