PAPPU DEO YADAV v. NARESH KUMAR & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Partly allowed
The appeal is partly allowed
Provisions considered
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ss. 140, 166, 168
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 279, 338
- Constitution of India
- Workmen’s Compensation Act
- Finance Act, 2011
Judgment
#3. The High Court clearly erred in holding that compensation for loss of future prospects could not be awarded. In addition to loss of future earnings (based on a determination of the income at the time of accident), the appellant is also entitled to compensation for loss of future prospects, @ 40% . There was no justification for the High Court to have read the previous rulings of this court, to exclude the possibility of compensation for future prospects in accident cases involving serious injuries resulting in permanent disablement. Such a narrow reading of Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 860 is illogical, because it denies altogether the possibility of the living victim progressing further in life in accident cases - and admits such possibility of future prospects, in case of the victim’s death. [Paras 12 and 7]
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The appeal is partly allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — ss. 140, 166, 168; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 279, 338; Constitution of India; Workmen’s Compensation Act; Finance Act, 2011.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.