Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.72 seconds)
Documents citing Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Pushpa Devi & Ors. on 4 March, 2014

Smt.Suraksha Pal vs Vipin Kumar on 11 January, 2021

35. However, during the course of arguments, it was very fairly urged by learned counsel for petitioners that as per the judgments of Hon'ble High court of Delhi, the loss of financial dependency in case of a deceased pensioner is to be reckoned as 1/2 of the pension as the family of the deceased pensioner, after his death is likely to receive 50% of pension as family pension. He cited a case titled as ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD versus PUSHPA DEVI & ORS, MAC.APP. 312/2011 dated 30.03.2016 , wherein it was held by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA :
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ashok Arya & Ors., Ashok Arya vs . Ashok Paswan & Ors. Page 1 Of 24 on 3 February, 2023

20. Similar question arose before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter titled as "Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pushpa Devi & Ors." MAC. APP. 312/2011, decided on 30.03.2016. In the said case, Hon'ble High Court had the occasion to deal with the issue as to whether the computation of loss of dependency was to be done by addition of entire pension receivable by the deceased during his life time to the earnings or not. The relevant paragraphs related to the issue in hand are reproduced as under:­ Ashok Arya & Ors., Ashok Arya Vs. Ashok Paswan & Ors. Page 11 of 24 MACP Nos. 34/19 & 35/19; FIR No. 354/18; PS. Alipur DOD:03.02.2023 xxxxx " 2. Having been fastened with the liability, the insurer has come up in appeal questioning the computation of loss of dependency by addition of the entire pension receivable by the deceased during his lifetime to the earnings. The objection essentially is that, after his death, his widow has been in receipt of family pension from army, a fact which was admitted by Avinash Dubey (PW1) one of the claimants, he being the son of the deceased. The family pension, under the normal service rules, would be half of the pension that the retired government servant is entitled to. In these circumstances, the value of the family pension that would have been received by the widow after the death would be in the sum of `4,371. This cannot treated as loss of dependency. It is the balance of `4,371/­ by which the income from pension for the purposes of the family has been reduced which only deserved to be added to the calculations.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Mahinder Singh vs Sh. Nilesh Aggarwal on 11 April, 2023

55. Similar question arose before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter titled as "Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pushpa Devi & Ors." MAC. APP. 312/2011, decided on 30.03.2016. In the said case, Hon'ble High Court had the occasion to deal with the issue as to whether the computation of loss of dependency was to be done by addition of entire pension receivable by the deceased during his life time to the earnings or not. The relevant paragraphs related to the issue in hand are reproduced as under:­ xxxxx " 2. Having been fastened with the liability, the insurer has come up in appeal questioning the computation of loss of dependency by addition of the entire pension receivable by the deceased during his lifetime to the earnings. The objection essentially is that, after his death, his widow has been in receipt of family pension from army, a fact which was admitted by Avinash Dubey (PW1) one of the claimants, he being the son of the deceased. The family pension, under the normal service rules, would be half of the pension that the retired government servant is entitled to. In these circumstances, the value of the family pension that would have been received by the widow after the death would be in the sum of `4,371. This cannot treated as loss of dependency. It is the balance of `4,371/­ by which the income from pension for the purposes of the family has been reduced which only deserved to be added to the calculations.
Delhi District Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Harjeet Kaur vs Sh. Dinesh Thakur on 8 February, 2016

Though this view was affirmed by a bench of three Hon'ble Judges in Resham Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr. (2013) 9 SCC 65, on ac­ count of divergence of views, as arising from the ruling in Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Ra­ Suit No.: 221/2014 Page No. 11 of 16 jbir & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54, the issue was later referred to a larger bench, in­ ter­alia, by order dated 02.07.2014 in Na­ tional Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pushpa & Ors., (2015) 9 SCC 166.
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Neha Srivastava W/O Late Sh. Vivek ... vs Sh. Durgesh Kushwaha on 19 February, 2016

Though this view was affirmed by a bench of three Hon'ble Judges in Resham Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr. (2013) 9 SCC 65, on ac­ count of divergence of views, as arising from the ruling in Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Ra­ jbir & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54, the issue was later referred to a larger bench, in­ ter­alia, by order dated 02.07.2014 in Na­ tional Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pushpa & Ors., (2015) 9 SCC 166.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh.Vikram @ Vikramjeet vs Sh.Abhishek S/O Sh.Sunil Kumar Gupta on 31 August, 2016

Though this view was affirmed by a bench of three Hon'ble Judges in Reshma Kumari & Ors. vs. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65, on ac- count of divergence of views, as arising from the rul- ing in Rajesh & Ors. vs. Rajbir & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54, the issue was later referred to a larger bench, inter-alia, by order dated 02.07.2014 in Na- tional Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pushpa & Ors., (2015) 9 SCC 166.
Delhi District Court Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Manju W/O Sh. Narender Rai vs Sh. Sanjay Kumar on 17 September, 2016

Though this view was af­ firmed by a bench of three Hon'ble Judges in Resham Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr. (2013) 9 SCC 65, on account of divergence of views, as arising from the ruling in  Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54,  the issue was later referred to a larger bench, inter­alia, by order dated 02.07.2014 in National In­ surance Company Ltd. Vs. Pushpa & Ors., (2015) 9 SCC 166.
Delhi District Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Manju W/O Sh. Narender Rai vs Sh. Sanjay Kumar on 17 September, 2016

Though this view was af­ firmed by a bench of three Hon'ble Judges in Resham Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr. (2013) 9 SCC 65, on account of divergence of views, as arising from the ruling in  Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54,  the issue was later referred to a larger bench, inter­alia, by order dated 02.07.2014 in National In­ surance Company Ltd. Vs. Pushpa & Ors., (2015) 9 SCC 166.
Delhi District Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Bharti W/O Late Sh. Brahm Prakash vs Sh. Swaroop Singh on 19 November, 2016

Though this view was affirmed by a bench of three Hon'ble Judges in  Resham Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr. (2013) 9 SCC 65, on account of divergence of views, as arising from the ruling in Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54, the issue was later referred to a larger bench, inter­alia, by order dated 02.07.2014 in  Na­ tional Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pushpa & Ors., (2015) 9 SCC 166.
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next