Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.77 seconds)
Documents citing The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs E.Ponnurangam on 17 April, 2012

Selvaraj vs Balasubramani on 23 April, 2021

12.In the decision reported in 2013 (1) TNMAC 47 (DB) – (New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Ponnurngam), the claim petitioner has not lost any earning capacity since he has already retired, alleged to have taking tuition. However, the said plea was not substantiated by any positive legal evidence and hence, the Tribunal has rightly negatived the plea of applying of multiplier method on the ground that the injury sustained during the accident has not resulted any functional disability, thereby, affected earning capacity to the claim petitioner. On the point of percentage of disability, based upon the evidence of PW2/Doctor, the Tribunal has fixed the disability at 70% while, the doctor has chosen at 80%.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs J.Kanchana @ Kalaiselvi ... 1St on 13 February, 2017

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant Insurance Company submitted that in respect of M.C.O.P.No.99 of 2014, when the claimant is a housewife and there being no documents to prove the income, the Tribunal has erroneously fixed the income of the claimant at Rs.9,000/- p.m. and quantified the compensation towards loss of earning capacity and loss of earning during the period of treatment on the higher side. As the claimant is a housewife, the question of loss of earning does not arise and in the absence of any loss of earning power, the adoption of multiplier method is not justified. Reliance was placed on the decision in New India Insurance Company Ltd., vs. E.Ponnurangam (2013 (1) TNMAC 47 DB). It is further contended that when the Tribunal has awarded compensation Rs.7,56,000/- towards loss of earning capacity/power and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of earning during the period of treatment, award of compensation of Rs.2,40,000/- towards disability at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per percentage of disability is unsustainable. Therefore, the compensation is very excessive and it needs to be interfered with. It is further contended that the compensation awarded under other heads are also very excessive and the same needs to be reduced.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - S Vimala - Full Document

The Divisional Manager vs Jagadeesh @ Jagdeesan on 6 June, 2018

Serious injuries have been caused, especially brain injuries to the 1st respondent/claimant and he is in a vegetative state, inspite of many operations performed on him. Therefore, the Tribunal following the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. E.Ponnurangam, reported in 2013 (1) TN MAC 47, rightly awarded Rs.2,00,000/- towards pain and suffering. The same is confirmed.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - N Kirubakaran - Full Document

The Divisional Manager vs Jagadeesh @ Jagdeesan on 6 June, 2018

Serious injuries have been caused, especially brain injuries to the 1st respondent/claimant and he is in a vegetative state, inspite of many operations performed on him. Therefore, the Tribunal following the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. E.Ponnurangam, reported in 2013 (1) TN MAC 47, rightly awarded Rs.2,00,000/- towards pain and suffering. The same is confirmed.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - N Kirubakaran - Full Document
1