Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 388 (0.72 seconds)
Documents citing Mrs. Helen C. Rebello & Ors vs Maharashtra State Road Transport ... on 18 September, 1998

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Kavita on 28 November, 2024

- 14 - Misc. Appeal No.240 of 2017 law underscored in both Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, 1999 (1) SCC 90; and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan, 2002 (2) T.A.C. 721 (SC). This Court is therefore of the considered opinion that the Hereditary Commission receivable by the Claimants cannot be said to have any nexus with the accident and would have been receivable by the Claimants even otherwise on the death of the victim. While it is no doubt true that the receipt of the Hereditary Commission was accelerated due to the premature death of the victim, even then the Commission cannot be said to have any nexus with the accident."
Jharkhand High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - S Chand - Full Document

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd vs Mrs.Renga Bai on 1 August, 2024

We may note that on principle this Court has not disagreed with the proposition laid down in Helen C. Rebello [Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra SRTC, (1999) 1 SCC 90 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 197] or in Patricia Jean Mahajan [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan, (2002) 6 SCC 281 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1294] , but while arriving at a just compensation, it had ordered the deduction of the salary received under the statutory Rules.” 23.4.In the case of Sebastiani Lakra v. National Insurance Co.
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - V B Subbaroyan - Full Document

R.Suganya vs B.Suresh on 28 February, 2020

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Helen C. Rebello (Mrs.) vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, (1999) 1 SCC 90 : (AIR 1999 SC 3191) _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page No 11 of 15 C.M.A.No.1977 of 2020 recognised this in Paragraph 35 which has been extracted above. The insured (the deceased) contributes his own money for which he receives the amount which has no co-relation to the compensation computed as against the tortfeasor for his negligence on account of the accident. As aforesaid, the amount receivable as compensation under the Act is on account of the injury or death without making any contribution towards it, then how can the fruits of an amount received through contributions of the insured be deducted out of the amount receivable under the Motor Vehicles Act. The amount under this Act he receives without any contribution. As we have said, the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is statutory while the amount receivable under the life insurance policy is contractual.”
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - C Saravanan - Full Document

Smt. Neelam Jain vs Pawan Sharma on 24 February, 2026

"19. The aforesaid issue fell for consideration before this Court in Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra SRTC [(1999) 1 SCC 90: 1999 SCC Signature Not Verified Signed by: NITESH PANDEY Signing time: 24-02-2026 17:46:36 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:15576 8 MA-4679-2023 (Cri) 197]. In the said case, this Court held that provident fund, pension, insurance and similarly any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc. are all a "pecuniary advantage" receivable by the heirs on account of one's death but all these have no correlation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned only on account of accidental death. Such an amount will not come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as "pecuniary advantage" liable for deduction. The following was the observation and finding of this Court: (SCC pp. 111-12, para 35) "35. Broadly, we may examine the receipt of the provident fund which is a deferred payment out of the contribution made by an employee during the tenure of his service. Such employee or his heirs are entitled to receive this amount irrespective of the accidental death. This amount is secured, is certain to be received, while the amount under the Motor Vehicles Act is uncertain and is receivable only on the happening of the event viz. accident, which may not take place at all. Similarly, family pension is also earned by an employee for the benefit of his family in the form of his contribution in the service in terms of the service conditions receivable by the heirs after his death.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs R.K. Jain & Ors. on 2 July, 2012

19. The judgment cited does not help the Claimant. Rather the same supports the Appellant Insurance Company. I have already discussed hereinabove the ratio of the decision in Helen C. Rebello (supra) and Patricia Jean Mahajan(supra). Admittedly, it is not every observation but the ratio decidendi of a case which is binding. In the instant case as held earlier, the binding ratio is that any amount received by the Claimant/Claimants on account of accidental death or injury is liable to be deducted from the compensation payable under Section 166 of the Act.
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 6 - G P Mittal - Full Document

National Insurance Company Ltd vs Sh Raj Singh & Ors on 25 April, 2026

"19. The aforesaid issue fell for consideration before this Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL MAC.APP. 981/2013 & MAC.APP. 335/2014 Page 7 of 12 KUMAR CHOUDHARY Signing Date:30.04.2026 18:40:11 Court in Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra SRTC [(1999) 1 SCC 90: 1999 SCC (Cri) 197]. In the said case, this Court held that provident fund, pension, insurance and similarly any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc. are all a "pecuniary advantage" receivable by the heirs on account of one's death but all these have no correlation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned only on account of accidental death. Such an amount will not come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as "pecuniary advantage"
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next