Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (0.77 seconds)
Documents citing Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. vs Bommanna Shetty @ Saritha B. Shetty . on 11 July, 2016

United India Insurance Company Limited vs Neha Thakur And Anr on 6 February, 2025

12. From the above facts, it is clear that a very just and fair compensation has been awarded to the claimant. Accordingly, in view of the discussion above, I find no case is made out that merits interference with the impugned Award. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'State of Haryana Vs. Jasbir Kaur' Law Finder Doc ID # 64043 and 'Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadeva Shetty', (2003) 7 SCC 197, has held that the amount of compensation should be just and reasonable, it should neither be a bonanza nor a source of profit but at the same time DIVYANSHI 2025.02.11 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-694-2025 (O&M) Page 7 of 7 it should not be a pittance. Thus, all that has to be determined in the facts of a given case is, that the compensation accorded is 'just'. In my considered view, in the present case, the learned Tribunal has awarded a very 'just' compensation, which is in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, does not warrant the interference of this Court.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Banarsi Devi vs Santosh Kumar And Others on 11 November, 2025

11. From the above facts, it is clear that a very just and fair compensation has been awarded to the appellants. Nothing whatsoever has been shown to this Court that would merit enhancement of the compensation granted to the appellants. No doubt Chapter-12 of the Act is a beneficial legislation yet, as cautioned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the same cannot be allowed to be treated as a windfall or a source of profit. Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'State of Haryana Vs. Jasbir Kaur' Law Finder Doc ID # 64043 and 'Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadeva Shetty' (2003) 7 SCC 197, has held that the amount of compensation should be just and reasonable, it should neither be a bonanza nor a source of profit but at the same time it should not be a pittance.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

R.Varun vs G.Venugopal on 17 August, 2020

9. So far as Pain and Suffering and trauma is concerned, though the petitioner has claimed Rs.1,20,000/- , based on Ex.P.10 to P.12 and the evidence of the Doctor that the claimant had sustained fracture of right femur and fracture of fibula with raw area right leg, rightly, the tribunal has awarded Rs.75,000/- . Also the tribunal has taken into account the settled principles of law of the Supreme Court and this court in the case of Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road, Transport Corporation Vs Mahadev Shetty reported in ACJ 1775 SC and in the case of Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd., Kumbakonam Vs Ahmed Thambi and Others reported in 2006 (4) CTC 433 and has ultimately awarded a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards Loss of Amenities. Thus, the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,75,500/- to the claimant payable by the second respondent herein.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - R Mahadevan - Full Document

The Managing Director vs V.Palani ... 1St on 24 January, 2017

4.4. The Claims Tribunal, relying upon the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd., Kumabakonam V. Ahmed Thambi and others, reported in 2006 (2) TNMAC 342 (FB) and also relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Mahadev Shetty reported in 2003 ACJ 1775 SC, has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- under the head 'loss of Amenities'.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - S Vimala - Full Document

Meena Rani And Ors vs Rajinder Kumar And Ors on 15 January, 2025

11. Accordingly, in view of the discussion above, I find no case is made out that merits interference with the impugned Award. I find the compensation awarded to the appellants to be just and fair in the facts and circumstances of the case. No doubt Chapter Chapter-12 of the Act is a beneficial legislation yet, as cautioned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the same cannot be allowed to be treated as a windfall or a source of profit. Moreover, compensation awarded upon the death of a near and dear loved one cannot be made a market negotiation, where 5 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 21-01-2025 22:28:45 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005727 Page 6 of 6 every penny has to be calculated and drawn. Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Jasbir Kaur' Law Finder Doc ID # 64043 and 'State 'Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadev Shetty', (2003) 7 SCC 197, has held that the amount of compensation should be just and reasonable, it should neither be a bonanza nor a source of profit but at the same time it should not be a pittance. Thus, all that has to be determined in the facts of a given case is, that the compensation accorded is 'just'. In my considered view, in the present case, the learned Tribunal has awarded a very 'just' compensation, which is in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, does not warrant the interference of this Court.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Neeraj Devi & Ors vs Suresh Kumar & Ors on 21 January, 2025

10. From the above facts, it is clear that a very just and fair compensation has been awarded to the appellant. Nothing whatsoever has been shown to this Court that would merit enhancement of the compensation granted to the appellant. Accordingly, in view of the discussion above, I find no case is made out which merits interference with the impugned Award. I find the compensation awarded to the 4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 25-01-2025 09:49:56 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:009185 Page 5 of 5 appellant to be just and fair in the facts and circumstances of the case. No doubt Chapter-12 Chapter of the Act is a beneficial al legislation yet, as cautioned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the same cannot be allowed to be treated as a windfall or a source of profit. Hon'ble Supreme Court in ''State of Haryana Vs. Jasbir Kaur' Law Finder Doc ID # 64043 and 'Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadev Shetty', (2003) 7 SCC 197, has held that the amount of compensation should be just and reasonable, it should neither be a bonanza nor a source of profit but at the same time it should not be a pittance. Thus, all that has to be determi determined in the facts of a given case is, that the compensation accorded is 'just'. In my considered view, in the present case, the learned Tribunal has awarded a very 'just' compensation, which is in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court Court and therefore, does not warrant the interference of this Court.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bimla Devi vs Jagvinder And Ors on 21 January, 2025

13. From the above facts, it is clear that a very just and fair compensation has been awarded to the appellant. Nothing whatsoever has been shown to this Court that would merit enhancement of the compensation granted to the appellant. Accordingly, in view of the discussion above, I find no case is made out which merits interference with the impugned Award. I find the compensation awarded to the appellant to be just and fair in the facts and circumstances of the case. No doubt Chapter-12 Chapter of the Act is a beneficial al legislation yet, as cautioned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the same cannot be allowed to be treated as a windfall or a source of profit. Hon'ble Supreme Court in ''State of Haryana Vs. Jasbir Kaur' Law Finder Doc ID # 64043 and 'Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadev Shetty', (2003) 7 SCC 197, has held that the amount of compensation should be just and reasonable, it should neither be a bonanza nor a source of profit but at the same time it should not be a pittance. Thus, all that has to be determi determined in the facts of a given case is, that the compensation accorded is 'just'. In my considered view, in the present case, the learned Tribunal has awarded a very 'just' compensation, which is in accordance with the law laid down by the 5 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 27-01-2025 22:10:57 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:009296 Page 6 of 6 Hon'ble Supreme Court Court and therefore, does not warrant the interference of this Court.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd vs Susheel Kumar And Another on 23 January, 2025

10. From the above facts, it is clear that a very just and fair compensation has been awarded to the injured-claimant/respondent No.1. Accordingly, in view of the discussion above, I find no case is made DIVYANSHI 2025.01.27 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1087-2024 (O&M) Page 6 of 6 out that merits interference with the impugned Award. Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'State of Haryana Vs. Jasbir Kaur' Law Finder Doc ID # 64043 and 'Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadev Shetty', (2003) 7 SCC 197, has held that the amount of compensation should be just and reasonable, it should neither be a bonanza nor a source of profit but at the same time it should not be a pittance. Thus, all that has to be determined in the facts of a given case is, that the compensation accorded is 'just'. In my considered view, in the present case, the learned Tribunal has awarded a very 'just' compensation, which is in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, does not warrant the interference of this Court.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next