Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.42 seconds)
Documents citing G.Sumathy vs K.Anbazhagan on 13 July, 2018

National Insurance Company Limited vs N.Murugesan on 16 July, 2019

In support of the said contention the learned counsel relied upon the decisions reported in 2013 (2) TNMAC 358 (SC) (Kishan Gopal and another Vs Lala and others), Civil Appeal No.5123 of 2019 dated 01.07.2019 (Parminder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited), 2017 (2) TNMAC 702 (J.Kanagaraj and another Vs. Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited) and 2018 (2) TNMAC 238 (G.Sumathy and another Vs. K.Anbazhagan and others).
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S Ramathilagam - Full Document

K.Kumar vs Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation ... on 19 March, 2019

7.The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the deceased in MCOP.No.190 of 2007 was aged 9 years, studying in V standard at M/s.G.K.Shetty Hindu Vidyalaya, Adambakkam. Taking note http://www.judis.nic.in of age of the deceased Mukilan on the date of accident, the Tribunal 5 ought to have awarded appropriate amount as compensation, but what was awarded is meager and not in consonance with the decision of this Court rendered in the case of G.Sumathy Vs. K.Anbazhagan reported in 2018 (2) TN MAC 238. In the saiid decision, this Court, following the decision of the Honourable Apex Court concluded that the notional income of the minor boy aged 6 years shall be fixed at Rs.40,000/- per annum. Further, in the said Judgment, by applying multiplier 16, this Court enhanced the total amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.1,70,000/- to Rs.7,20,000/-. But in the present case, the Tribunal without taking note of the above decision rendered by this Court, has awarded only a lumpsum compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- which is not proper.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

National Insurance Company Ltd vs D.Rajendiran on 11 August, 2023

12. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the deceased was Page No.5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.1971 of 2018 2-½ years old child at the time accident, which took place in the year 1992. During the relevant period, children are not entitled for notional income. The deceased was only 2-½ years old at the time of accident and notional income cannot be fixed and the object of ordering compensation is to compensate the life of a person in terms of money, and it is only a solatium and therefore, the notional income cannot be fixed in respect of the child, who was only aged about 2-½ years at the time of accident. Under these circumstances, the citations referred to by the learned counsel for both sides, i.e. by the respondent in 2018 (2) TN MAC 238 (G.Sumathy Vs. K.Anbazhagan), and of the appellants in CDJ 2001 SC 471 (Lata Wadhwa Vs. State of Bihar) and also of the appellant in R.K.Malik and another Vs. Kiran Pal and others, in Civil Appeal No.3608 of 2009 (arising out of SLP (C).No.17525 of 2006, dated 15.05.2009, are not applicable to the facts of the present case on hand.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - P Velmurugan - Full Document
1