Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.66 seconds)

National Insurance Company Limited vs Velmurugan on 23 December, 2005

In the decision in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Krishnan reported in 2013(1) TNMAC 729 relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent/claimant, a single bench of this court after considering the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court held in para 36 of its judgment that http://www.judis.nic.in 7 "If the contention of the Appellant-Insurance Company has to be accepted, then no compensation can be awarded under other heads, viz., Disability, Loss of Earning, Pain and Suffering or under any other pecuniary and non- pecuniary losses. Even the respondent/claimant will not be in a position to get back Rs.1,15,934/-, incurred by him, towards medical expenses. Such a narrow construction of limiting the compensation only to Rs.1,00,000/- cannot be made, when sufficient oral and documentary evidence, has been adduced to prove that the pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses suffered by the injured, exceeds the maximum limit. Restricting the compensation to only Rs.1,00,000/- would defeat the very intention of the legislature, to award, "just compensation " to the accident victim, and it will not be in conformity with the judgments of the Apex Court, stated supra, On the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the view that the overall quantum of compensation awarded to the respondent/ claimant cannot be said to be grossly excessive. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount with accrued interest and costs, to http://www.judis.nic.in 8 the credit of MCOP No.459 of 2008, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub-Court), Sankari, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being made, the respondent/ claimant is permitted to withdraw the same, by making necessary applications before the Tribunal".
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Venkatesan vs M.K.V.Kandasamy Nadar on 5 February, 2009

11. Following the principle laid down in Kaliya Pillai and others case, it has to be necessarily held in this matter that the appellant is entitled for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, even though he is termed to be a wrong doer. The findings furnished by the Tribunal in its award on the factual aspects are proper and there is no necessity to interfere with the same. However, as adverted to already, he, under law, is entitled to receive compensation from the fifth respondent.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 2 - S Palanivelu - Full Document
1