Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 42 (0.46 seconds)
Documents citing Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd. ... vs Pranay Sethi And Ors. Reported In Air ... on 2 August, 2018

Divisional Manager vs Manjushree Mohapatra And Another on 6 February, 2019

08. Per contra, Mr. Panigrahi, learned Advocate for the respondent nos.1 and 2, submitted that the income of the deceased towards his perk from the month of April, 2016 to December, 2016 was Rs.74,117.31. Learned Tribunal ought to have added Rs.5,478/- towards perk from his monthly salary income. If the same is added, monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.55,572/-. He further submitted that the age of the deceased shall be taken into account while calculating the multiplier. He placed reliance to the decision of the apex Court in the cases of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Indira Srivastava and others, 2008 AIR SCW 143, P.S. Somanathan and others vs. District Insurance Officer and another, 2011 (1) T.A.C. 861 (SC), Amrit Bhanu Shali and others vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, 2012 (4) T.A.C. 775 (SC) National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 (II) ILR-CUT- 998 (SC).
Orissa High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - A K Rath - Full Document

Oriental Insurance Co. Thru. Manager vs Harishit Srivastava @ Umang & 2 Ors. on 19 February, 2020

Lastly on the aspect of future prospect, this Court finds that the submission putforth by learned counsel for the appellant does have force in view of the judgment rendered by the apex Court in the case of National Insurance company Limited versus Pranay Sethi and others(supra), which has wrongly been applied in the present case. To this extent, the argument putforth by learned counsel for the appellant has substance and deserves acceptance. The future prospect of the income is thus modified and substituted as 30% of the notional income.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ram Sakha Patel vs Deen Dayal Mehra on 29 July, 2020

Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra) it has been concluded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in determination of the multiplicand the deduction for personal and living expenses the Tribunals shall be guided by the law as laid in Sarla Verma's case. The deceased was unmarried. As per the High School Certificate, the date of birth of the deceased was 15.10.1994, the accident took place on 14.09.2015, so, he was about 21 years of age at the time of accident and the applicable multiplier would be '18'.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Smt. Sarla Devi And Others on 31 August, 2018

Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others, reported in 2017 ACJ 2700, assessing a sum of Rs. One lacs, under, the head " Loss of love and affection", a sum of Rs.one lac under the head of "loss of consortium, to, petitioner No.1" and Rs.25000/- under the head "Funeral Expenses". Consequently, the assessment of ::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2018 21:53:51 :::HCHP ...15...
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 16 - S Thakur - Full Document

Smt. Meena Devi vs Sh. Naveen Kumar on 1 October, 2018

22. After the celebrated judgment of "National Insurance Company Smt Meena Devi & Ors. Vs. Naveen Kumar & Ors. Page 11  of 16 MACP No. 4180/16  (Old No. 261/14) FIR No. 82/14 ; PS Kundli, Sonipat, Haryana DOD: 01.10.2018 Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.", mentioned supra, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeal titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja &  Ors",  mentioned   supra,   has   been   pleased   to   observe   in  para   18   of   the judgment that the constitution bench decision in Pranay Sethi (supra) does not recognize any other non­pecuniary head of damages. Hence, no amount of compensation is being awarded under this head.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

G.Rajammal vs M/S S.S.V.Transport on 29 November, 2018

Further more, as per the decision of a Constitution Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court in National http://www.judis.nic.in Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in 2017(2) TN MAC 601, future prospects at 40% should be added to the income of the deceased. As 4 far as the present case is concerned, the contention of the appellants is that their son was earning a sum of Rs.3,500/- per month and Rs.1,500/- towards overtime. Though no documentary evidence was adduced to prove the same, considering the fact that the deceased was employed in M/s M/s Accenture Software company, Solinganallur as house keeper, a sum of Rs.4,500/- is fixed as monthly income of the deceased. To this, 40% is added towards future prospects (4,500+1800=6300). Since the deceased was bachelor on the date of accident, half of the amount has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. Therefore, Loss of dependecy is awarded at (3150x12x18) Rs.6,80,400/-. In addition to that, the claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000, Rs.15,000/- and Rs.40,000/- towards Loss of Estate, Funeral Expenses and Loss of consortium respectively. The revised award of compensation under various heads is extracted hereunder.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - R Hemalatha - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next