Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.57 seconds)
Documents citing S. Achuthan And Anr. vs M. Gopal And Anr. on 30 April, 2003

Metropolitan Transport Corporation ... vs N.Kaliaperumal on 29 January, 2007

In a decision reported in 2003 ACJ 1210 (S.Achuthan vs. M.Gopal and another), the injured suffered compound fracture of left tibia and fibula, closed fracture shaft of left femur, compound fracture of 3rd proximal phalanx of left middle finger, fracture in left temporal region, fracture of 7th and 8th ribs left side and cruciate ligament injury of left knee. He was hospitalised twice and remained inpatient for six months and underwent 10 surgeries. There was skin grafting, muscle grafting, plates were fixed in left thigh and outer ring on knee. The injured suffered from renal failure and 6 sittings of dialysis were done. He cannot squat and would need assistance in walking, climbing stairs. He lost his memory due to depression on the left temporal bone and that he was found unfit to practice his profession as a lawyer. Therefore, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for pain and suffering.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - S Manikumar - Full Document

Mohd. Asjad Jamal vs The Chairman Dtc on 21 May, 2010

Considering the trauma which the plaintiff suffered on account of negligence and tortuous act of the defendant as well as pain, suffering as well as towards permanent disability to the extent of 25%, this court deem it fit to award Rs. 3,00,000/- considering the observation of their lordship in case of S. Achuthan (Supra) wherein amount of Rs. 3 lac was awarded in the similar facts and circumstances and 25% disability of the petitioner therein. Accordingly the total sum awarded comes to Rs. 6,82,500/- + 3,00,000 + 22,823 - the amount of Rs. 2 lac awarded by their lordship which comes to Rs. 8,05,323/-.
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd vs P.Rajakumar on 29 January, 2013

No doubt, after the amputation of his right leg and due to the mental pain and depression in remobilising his software business, as he had to travel to various places on his own to receive/procure orders, he became handicapped and cannot even concentrate on light work. Therefore, it must be mentioned that his future has completely gone bleak, hence, the award of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering is considered low and this Court finds that a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- would be a just and fair compensation. Accordingly, the compensation awarded towards pain and suffering is increased to Rs.2,00,000/-. This approach of mine gets the support from the judgment of the Apex Court in S.Achuthan v. M.Gopal and another, 2003 ACJ 1210, where the injured suffered compound fracture of left tibia and fibula, closed fracture shaft of left femur, compound fracture of third proximal phalanx of left middle finger etc., and he was hospitalised twice and remained inpatient and underwent several surgeries. There was skin grafting, muscle grafting and plates were also fixed in left thigh. By looking into the plight of the injured that he cannot squat and would need assistance in walking, climbing stairs and also further finding that he was unfit to practice his profession as a lawyer, the Apex Court accepted the award of Rs.3,00,000/- for pain and suffering. Taking a lead from the said judgment, when a young skilled software engineer in the present case lost his right leg along with multiple injuries all over his body, which made his normal life topsy-turvy, as he is not able to walk freely, sit and attend to the call of nature as he was doing prior to the accident, the enhancement of the compensation towards pain and suffering to Rs.2,00,000/- would meet the ends of justice.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - T Raja - Full Document

The Metropolitan Transport vs P.John Justin on 8 October, 2010

14.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant vehemently argued that the claimant's leg was amputated and one of hands is completely broken, surgical operations were done. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence of the claimant and Doctor's evidence and on seeing the physical condition of the claimant, the award was granted. After the accident, the claimant used to go by hired auto to his work spot. Further, the learned counsel pointed out that till his life time, he has to move with another persons physical support, as such attender charges is required on a permanent basis. During the medical treatment period he had drawn only half salary. The accident had happened in the middle part of his life, hence he lost his happiness and peace of mind. The learned counsel in support of his contentions has cited the following Judgments made in 2003 (3) CTC 106, S.Achuthan and another Vs. M.Gopal and another, the relevant head notes of which are as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - C S Karnan - Full Document

A.Govindarajan vs S.Karunanithi on 3 August, 2012

19. Following the principle laid down in both the decisions, we are of the view that the claimant is a practicing advocate in the Mofisil Court and he would have earned a sum of Rs.7,500/- per month. The age of the claimant at the time of the accident is 36 years. Therefore, as per the schedule of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the multiplier is 16. It is also to be pointed out that he suffered 70%. Therefore, the loss of income may be Rs.7,500 X 12 X 16 X 70/100 = Rs.10,08,000/-. We are modifying the compensation as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

A.Govindarajan vs S.Karunanithi on 3 August, 2012

19. Following the principle laid down in both the decisions, we are of the view that the claimant is a practicing advocate in the Mofisil Court and he would have earned a sum of Rs.7,500/- per month. The age of the claimant at the time of the accident is 36 years. Therefore, as per the schedule of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the multiplier is 16. It is also to be pointed out that he suffered 70%. Therefore, the loss of income may be Rs.7,500 X 12 X 16 X 70/100 = Rs.10,08,000/-. We are modifying the compensation as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1