This compilation indexes twelve reported rulings decided between April and May 2026 by the Supreme Court of India, the Delhi High Court, the Punjab-Haryana High Court, and the Gujarat High Court, all arising from appeals filed under or in connection with Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Each entry records the bench, date, sections engaged, outcome direction, and a brief procedural or substantive note drawn exclusively from the source preview for that case. The compilation is intended for legal researchers, claims counsel, insurance litigation teams, and motor accident law practitioners who need a structured index of recent judicial activity on compensation quantum and related procedural questions.

Research index only. This page is a structured case-law reference. Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice, and readers should verify all citations against the full text of the original judgment before relying on them in any professional or judicial context.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 prescribes the procedure for making an application for compensation arising out of a motor accident. It provides that an application for compensation may be made by the person who sustained the injury, or by the owner of the property damaged, or, where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, or by any agent duly authorised by such person or all or any of such legal representatives. The section further specifies the forum — the Claims Tribunal within whose jurisdiction the accident occurred or the claimant resides or carries on business — and sets out procedural requirements for the application.

The 12 rulings

1. Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd vs G C Aggarwal & Ors

Bench: Delhi High Court
Date: 26 May 2026
Sections engaged: 166
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (MAC.APP. 1181/2014 & CM APPL. 21214/2014, along with MAC.APP. 535/2016) was decided by the Delhi High Court after being reserved on 28 April 2026. The source preview records a detailed tabular recalculation of compensation heads including loss of dependency, loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, and loss of estate, with the Court's figures differing from the Tribunal's award on several heads, including a fresh award for loss of consortium that the Tribunal had not granted.

2. Sarla Devi vs Reliance General Insurance Company

Bench: Supreme Court of India
Date: 26 May 2026
Sections engaged: 166
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This Supreme Court appeal (arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 13979 of 2018, citation 2026 INSC 575) challenged the order dated 12.09.2017 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in F.A.O. No. 3633 of 2015, which had modified the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak. The source preview records the Court's computation of income, future prospects, personal expense deduction, multiplier, and conventional heads including loss of consortium, loss of love and affection for the daughter and mother, funeral expenses, and loss of estate.

3. The New India Assurance Company Limited vs Dolly Satish Gandhi

Bench: Supreme Court of India
Date: 15 May 2026
Sections engaged: 166
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This reportable Supreme Court judgment (2026 INSC 498, arising from SLP (Civil) No. 18267 of 2025) examined the question of whether a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal may deduct amounts received by a claimant under a separate medical insurance policy for the same medical expenses that form part of the MACT claim. The preview indicates a conflict between High Court divisions on this point was placed before the Supreme Court, with the Bombay High Court's differing judgments specifically noted as the backdrop for the reference.

4. National Insurance Co Ltd vs Geeta Devi And Others

Bench: Punjab-Haryana High Court
Date: 7 May 2026
Sections engaged: 166
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (FAO-7335-2018 (O&M) and cross-objection XOBJC-19-2019 (O&M)) was reserved on 20.03.2026 and pronounced on 07.05.2026. The source preview records a tabular recalculation of compensation showing a monthly income figure of Rs. 39,734/-, with future prospects added at 15% and a personal expense deduction applied at one-third; the matter involved both an appeal by the insurance company and cross-objections by the respondents.

5. Kanubhai Bachubhai Bariya vs Manuji Hathisinh Rathod

Bench: Gujarat High Court
Date: 29 April 2026
Sections engaged: 166, 173
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This First Appeal (R/First Appeal No. 2381 of 2016) was filed by the original claimant against the award dated 27 July 2016 of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Main). The source preview records that the Court enhanced the total compensation from Rs. 1,08,283/- (as awarded by the Tribunal) to Rs. 1,80,200/- before applying a 25% deduction for contributory negligence, resulting in an enhanced amount of Rs. 53,938/-, with an interest rate of 9% maintained.

6. United India Insurance Company Limited vs Bimla Sharma & Others

Bench: Punjab-Haryana High Court
Date: 24 April 2026
Sections engaged: 166
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Two connected appeals (FAO-1325-2018 (O&M) and FAO-1326-2018 (O&M)) were heard together, both filed by the same insurance company against different sets of claimant respondents and reserved on 20.03.2026. The source preview records a tabular compensation statement showing a monthly income of Rs. 46,100/-, future prospects at 15%, a personal expense deduction at one-fifth, annual dependency, and conventional heads including loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium; a deduction on account of compassionate assistance to dependants is also noted.

7. National Insurance Company Limited vs Rani And Ors

Bench: Punjab-Haryana High Court
Date: 24 April 2026
Sections engaged: 166
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (FAO-872-2022 (O&M)) was heard together with a cross-objection (XOBJC-98-2022 (O&M)), reserved on 17.04.2026, and pronounced on 24.04.2026. The source preview, which consists largely of pagination markers for the judgment, records in its closing pages amounts for loss of consortium at Rs. 40,000/- and funeral expenses at Rs. 15,000/-; the substantive detail of the recalculation is not recoverable from the available preview.

8. Raghbir Singh And Ors vs Karamjit Singh And Ors

Bench: Punjab-Haryana High Court
Date: 22 April 2026
Sections engaged: 166
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (FAO-247-2016 (O&M)) was reserved on 21.04.2025 and pronounced on 22.04.2026. The source preview records the Court's compensation table showing a monthly income of Rs. 15,000/-, future prospects at 10%, a personal expense deduction at one-fourth, annual dependency of Rs. 16,33,500/-, and conventional heads of loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium (parental, spousal, and filial at Rs. 40,000/- each); the enhanced compensation over the Tribunal's award was recorded as Rs. 11,23,500/-.

9. Akshay Kumar And Anr vs Hardeep Singh And Ors

Bench: Punjab-Haryana High Court
Date: 22 April 2026
Sections engaged: 166
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (FAO-2738-2025 (O&M)) was decided on 22.04.2026. The source preview records a compensation computation showing income of Rs. 10,000/- per month, future prospects added at 30%, personal living expenses deducted at one-third, and a multiplier of 13 applied, yielding a dependency figure of Rs. 13,52,000.52/-; conventional heads of loss of estate, loss of consortium, and funeral expenses were also awarded. Separately, the preview records that a condonation of delay application for 111 days was refused, the Court noting that delay of each day must be explained and that the reason offered did not constitute sufficient cause.

10. Kanta And Ors vs Jagpal And Ors

Bench: Punjab-Haryana High Court
Date: 21 April 2026
Sections engaged: 166
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Two connected appeals (FAO-2944-2015 (O&M) and FAO-2054-2015 (O&M)) were heard together and decided on 21.04.2026. The source preview records the Court's recalculation contrasting the Tribunal's figures with the Court's revised figures, including a 50% future prospects addition that the Tribunal had not granted, an enhanced annual dependency figure of Rs. 2,87,052/- applied at a multiplier of 16 to yield Rs. 45,92,832/-, and revised conventional heads; the total enhanced compensation was Rs. 16,31,008/- at 6% interest per annum. A separate condonation of delay application for 15 days filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also before the Court.

11. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Vidyawati And Others

Bench: Punjab-Haryana High Court
Date: 21 April 2026
Sections engaged: 166
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (FAO-3420-2013 (O&M)) was reserved on 19.03.2026 and pronounced on 21.04.2026. The source preview records a detailed compensation table showing a monthly income of Rs. 23,864/-, future prospects at 30%, a personal expense deduction at one-fourth, annual dependency of Rs. 36,29,808/-, and loss of consortium at Rs. 2,40,000/- distributed across spousal, filial, and parental claimants; a deduction on account of compassionate assistance to dependants of Rs. 34,36,416/- was applied, leaving a net amount to be granted of Rs. 4,63,392/-.

12. Ketnaben Manojkumar Patel vs Sulemanbhai Ganibhai Shaikh

Bench: Gujarat High Court
Date: 21 April 2026
Sections engaged: 166, 173
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This First Appeal (R/First Appeal No. 1406 of 2015, citation C/FA/1406/2015) was decided as an oral judgment on 21.04.2026. The source preview records that the Court substantially enhanced the compensation from the Tribunal's award of Rs. 5,02,000/- to Rs. 12,63,100/-, representing an enhanced amount of Rs. 7,61,100/-, with interest at 8.5%; specific heads revised upward included future loss of income (from Rs. 4,32,000/- to Rs. 10,80,000/-), loss of consortium (from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 96,800/-), and awards for love, care and affection (Rs. 50,000/-), funeral expenses, and loss of estate that were either not granted or enhanced by the Tribunal.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

Appellate recalculation of compensation heads is the central issue across all cases. In every case where the source preview contains a compensation table, the appellate court's figures differ from the Tribunal's figures on one or more heads, confirming that quantum disputes — rather than pure liability questions — dominate Section 166 appellate dockets at this time.
Future prospects are consistently re-examined on appeal. Multiple previews show the appellate court adding or revising the future prospects percentage (at rates of 10%, 15%, 30%, or 50% depending on the deceased's age category), suggesting this remains a frequently contested head at the Tribunal stage and a recurring correction point on appeal.
Loss of consortium awards are regularly revised upward. Across several previews — including cases 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 — loss of consortium figures were either freshly awarded by the appellate court or enhanced from the Tribunal's figure, reflecting continuing judicial development of this head of compensation.
Delay condonation is decided alongside the compensation appeal. At least two cases in this compilation (cases 9 and 10) involved condonation of delay applications filed under the Limitation Act alongside the main appeal; in case 9 the application for 111 days' delay was refused, while in case 10 a 15-day delay application was before the Court, indicating that limitation compliance at the appellate stage continues to be a threshold issue in MACT matters.
The Supreme Court is actively addressing structural questions, not only quantum. Case 3 (New India Assurance vs Dolly Satish Gandhi, 2026 INSC 498) involved a question of principle — whether medical insurance receipts can be deducted from MACT compensation for the same expenses — going beyond individual quantum revision and indicating the Supreme Court's ongoing role in resolving inter-court conflicts on compensation methodology.

How to use this compilation

This compilation is a structured finding aid. Each entry provides the minimum identity information needed to locate the full judgment — party names, bench, date, and case number references visible in the source preview — and a brief note on the procedural or substantive focus visible from the available text. Researchers should use these details to retrieve the complete judgment from indiankanoon.org, the official court portal, or a primary law database before citing any case in a brief, memo, or advice.

Given that all twelve outcomes are recorded as "Outcome not specified in source," researchers must read the operative portion of each full judgment to determine the precise direction of the order, the exact compensation figures ultimately directed to be paid, and whether the order was stayed or challenged in a further appeal. The absence of a confirmed outcome in this index does not imply that the matter remains pending — it reflects only the limits of the structured data available at the time of compilation.

Practitioners should also check whether any of these judgments have been appealed to, or stayed by, a higher court subsequent to the date recorded here, and whether any CBDT, IRDAI, or Ministry of Road Transport circulars issued after the judgment date are relevant to the compensation methodology applied. The case-law position on MACT compensation methodology — particularly on future prospects percentages, multiplier selection, and deductibility of collateral benefits — continues to evolve, and a single compilation snapshot should be read alongside the broader line of Supreme Court authority on just compensation.

Source

All cases listed above are drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals.

Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act: 12 MACT Compensation Rulings (2026)