Review: Supreme Court Rules that in Motor Accident Cases, Insurer Must Provide Minimum Wages Details if Victim Lacks Income Proof
In this edition of court judgements review, we shall look into the Supreme Court’s judgment on anticipatory bail in SC/ST Act cases, its ruling on minimum wage calculations for minor victims in motor accident cases, the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s judgment on a wife’s self-harm as grounds for divorce, among others.
Supreme Court: Anticipatory Bail Barred in SC/ST Act Cases If Prima Facie Offence Exists
In the case of Kiran vs. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain & Anr., the Supreme Court of India ruled that anticipatory bail can’t be granted in cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act), if there’s a prima facie case.
The case involved an altercation where a member of the “Matang” community alleged he was a victim of caste-based abuse, assault, and threats. An FIR was filed against the accused, who belonged to the Jain community, under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3(1)(o), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i) of the SC/ST PoA Act. While the trial court denied anticipatory bail, the Bombay High Court granted it, stating the case appeared politically motivated.
The appellant, Kiran, appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that Section 18 of the SC/ST PoA Act strictly prohibits anticipatory bail when a prima facie case exists. The appellant cited Vilas Pandurang Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and Prathvi Raj Chauhan vs. Union of India, arguing that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction. The respondents, on the other hand, referenced Shajan Skaria vs. State of Kerala, claiming the allegations were politically motivated and lacked a caste-based component.
The Supreme Court bench, led by Justice N.V. Anjaria, set aside the High Court’s order. It ruled that anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not a fundamental right and cannot be granted as a matter of routine in cases of alleged caste-based atrocities. The Court found that the allegations of caste-based insults and violence clearly constituted a prima facie offence under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act.
The judgment reiterated that the SC/ST PoA Act was enacted to protect vulnerable communities from systemic oppression. Accordingly, the Court revoked the anticipatory bail granted to the accused, directing the investigation to proceed as per the law.
Supreme Court: In Motor Accident Cases, Insurer Must Provide Minimum Wages Details if Victim Lacks Income Proof
In the landmark case of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel vs. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr., the Supreme Court of India mandated that if a minor victim of a motor vehicle accident lacks proof of income, the insurance company must furnish the relevant minimum wage notification to the tribunal. This key directive aims to prevent delays and unnecessary appeals in compensation cases.
The case originated from a tragic 2012 incident where an 8-year-old boy, Hitesh Patel, suffered a brain haemorrhage and the amputation of his left leg after being hit by a vehicle. His initial claim for ₹10,00,000 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, led to a meagre award of ₹ 3,90,000 from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. While the High Court of Gujarat subsequently increased this to ₹ 8,65,000, it was still considered inadequate by the victim’s family, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court.
The appellant’s core argument was that the lower courts had failed to correctly compute his future loss of earnings, treating him as a non-earning individual despite legal precedent mandating the use of minimum wages for minors. A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra agreed with this contention. They overturned the High Court’s decision, emphasising that children injured in accidents must not be categorised as non-earning.
The Court meticulously recalculated the compensation based on the 2012 minimum wage for a skilled worker in Gujarat, which was ₹6,836 per month. Applying a multiplier and adding a 40% provision for future prospects, the bench significantly enhanced the total compensation to ₹35,90,489. The respondents were ordered to deposit this sum, with 9% annual interest, into the appellant’s bank account. This ruling solidifies the principle of fair compensation for minors and shifts the burden of providing crucial income data to the insurer.
Madhya Pradesh HC: Wife’s Act of Self-Harm and False Blame is Cruelty, Divorce Granted
In Heeralal Meena vs. Smt. Rama @ Rameti, the Madhya Pradesh High Court granted a husband’s divorce petition, ruling that a wife’s act of setting herself on fire and then falsely blaming her husband’s family constituted an act of mental cruelty.
The husband, Heeralal Meena, sought divorce on grounds of cruelty after his wife, Rama, sustained severe burn injuries. He alleged she had attempted self-immolation by pouring kerosene on herself, an act that caused him and his family immense fear and trauma. The wife, however, claimed her husband and in-laws had set her on fire, but she failed to provide credible evidence, such as independent witnesses or a police report, to support her version of events. She explained that she did not file an FIR on the advice of community members. The trial court had dismissed the husband’s petition, but he appealed to the High Court.
A division bench of Justice Vishal Dhagat and Justice Anuradha Shukla carefully examined the evidence. The Court found the wife’s explanation for not filing a criminal complaint unconvincing and noted the absence of credible proof. They accepted the husband’s consistent testimony that the burns were a result of the wife’s own actions. The bench held that taking such a drastic step and then levelling a false accusation of attempted murder against the husband’s family created a situation where continued cohabitation was impossible. Citing the Supreme Court case of Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh, the Court declared that such grave and traumatic behaviour clearly amounts to cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act.
The High Court also admonished the trial court for using confidential mediation discussions in its judgment, undermining the sanctity of the process. Consequently, the High Court overturned the trial court’s decision, dissolved the marriage, and granted a decree of divorce to the husband.
Bombay HC: Grandparents’ ‘Emotional Attachment’ to Child Not Enough to Deny Custody to Biological Parents
In Pravin Nathalal Parghi vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., the Bombay High Court ruled that a child’s emotional bond with grandparents does not outweigh the superior legal right of biological parents to custody. The court’s decision was based on the principle that parents have a primary right unless they are deemed unfit.
The case involved Pravin Nathalal Parghi, a father who sought custody of his five-year-old twin son from the paternal grandmother via a Writ of Habeas Corpus. The father, a natural guardian, argued that separating the twins was harmful, citing that he and his wife were fully capable of caring for both, including the other twin who has cerebral palsy. He referenced Supreme Court judgments such as Tejaswini Gaud vs. Shekhar Tiwari and Gautam Kumar Das vs. NCT of Delhi to support his claim.
The grandmother contended she was the primary caregiver and that the child had a strong emotional bond with her. She also argued that a pending case under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 made the writ petition non-maintainable.
The bench, consisting of Justices Ravindra V. Ghuge and Gautam A. Ankhad, found no evidence to suggest the father was unfit. The court prioritised the child’s welfare, stressing that keeping the siblings together was crucial for their emotional and psychological development. The court ordered the police to transfer custody to the father and granted the grandmother three months of visitation rights to ensure a smooth transition.
Orissa HC: Forcing DNA Test in Property Cases is a Violation of Privacy
In Golapi Majhi vs. Bhabanishankar Budulal @ Kisan and Others, the Orissa High Court ruled that compelling a person to undergo a DNA test in a partition suit to determine parentage is an unwarranted invasion of privacy. The court upheld a trial court’s decision to reject a request for a DNA test, emphasising that such tests should only be ordered in exceptional circumstances.
The case involved a plaintiff who sought to prove that one of the defendants was not the biological son of the deceased family member and therefore not entitled to a share of the joint family property. The plaintiff’s request for a DNA test was opposed by the respondents, who pointed out that the mother had already confirmed her son’s parentage under oath.
Justice B.P. Routray of the Orissa High Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. Citing Section 112 of the Evidence Act, the Court highlighted that a mother’s testimony acknowledging her child’s parentage carries significant legal weight. The judgment relied on several key Supreme Court precedents, including Bhabani Prasad Jena vs. Convenor Secretary, Orissa State Commission for Women, which established that DNA tests are not to be ordered routinely, and Goutam Kundu vs. State of West Bengal, which emphasised balancing the right to privacy with the pursuit of truth. The court noted that the defendant, now 58 years old, had long been socially and legally recognised as the son of the deceased. Directing a DNA test would not only be an insult to his mother’s testimony but would also serve no meaningful purpose in the context of a partition suit. The Court concluded that entitlement to family property is based on recognition within the family and society, not solely on biological lineage. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
