T.Ravanan vs P.R.Selvaraj on 23 April, 2007
A Division Bench of Madras High Court in Pallavan Transport Corporation
Limited v. M.Anbumani cited above has observed as follows:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.39 seconds)T.Ravanan vs P.R.Selvaraj on 23 April, 2007
A Division Bench of Madras High Court in Pallavan Transport Corporation
Limited v. M.Anbumani cited above has observed as follows:
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs R. Sathiyanarayanan on 10 November, 2004
In 2004 ACJ 1086 (PALLAVAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD. V.
M ANBUMANI AND OTHERS), the appeal was filed by the owner (Transport
Corporation) challenging the award, but no cross-objection had been filed by
the claimant/respondent. By invoking power under Order 41 Rule 33, the
Division Bench enhanced the compensation amount. It was observed :-
Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation vs Muthulakshmi on 22 February, 2010
20.On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the claimants submits that
the same Bench in Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd. v. M.Anbumani reported in
2004 ACJ 1086 has held that this Court being an Appellate Court could invoke
power under Order 41 Rule 33 of Civil Procedure Code and enhancement of
compensation could be made in the absence of cross objection by the claimants.
In the said case, the deceased was a police constable. Reliance is placed on
paragraph 6 of the said judgment and the same is extracted herein:
Clara vs T.Harendranath on 5 January, 2007
In the light of the above said principles laid down by the Apex Court and the Division Bench of this Court it has to be held that the contention of the learned counsel for the second respondent-insurer is liable to be rejected. Though appellants have restricted their claim to Rs.8,00,000/- in the appeal there is no bar for the Court to award compensation in excess of what is claimed particularly when the evidence brought on record in this case warrants quantification of compensation payable at Rs.14,00,068/-. And on that amount the appellants are also entitled to claim interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of application till the date of payment. Therefore this Court is of the considered view that the total compensation payable is Rs.14,00,068/- and already the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards no fault liability and deducting the same the appellants are entitled to be paid a sum of Rs.13,50,000/- (rounded off) by the second respondent-insurer.
S. Sridhar And The New India Assurance ... vs Kannupaiyan And Ponnammal on 19 June, 2006
Though the claim has been made under the above heads and since no amount has been awarded, this Court feels that appropriate amount should be awarded on these heads, following the decision of a Division Bench of this Court (Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd. v. M. Anbumani), relevant portion of which reads as follows:
The Managing Director vs Tmt.M.Indirani on 6 August, 2010
In spite of treatment as inpatient for three episodes, no amount has been
granted for attender charges. Further, meagre amount has been granted for extra
nourishment and transport. No amount has been granted towards loss of income
during the period of treatment and convalescence stating that proof for
tailoring business was not filed. However, as a house-wife, she is entitled to
certain amount for the service she would render for maintaining the house. On
that account a sum of Rs.7,500/- is granted towards loss of income during the
period of treatment and convalescence. Following the decision of a Division
Bench of this Court in Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd., - vs. - M.Anbumani
reported in 2004 ACJ 1086, this Court is constrained to invoke the provisions
of Order 41 Rule 33 CPC to enhance the compensation to the injured claimant lady
as indicated below:-
Srivatsa Tube Corporation vs K.Latha on 19 June, 2006
12. It is worthwhile to refer to paragraph 6 of the judgment of a
Division Bench of this Court reported in 2004 ACJ 1086 (Pallavan Transport
Corporation Ltd. vs. M.Anbumani), which reads as follows:
S.Sridha vs Kannupaiyan on 19 June, 2006
Though the claim has been made under the above heads and since no amount has
been awarded, this Court feels that appropriate amount should be awarded on
these heads, following the decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported
in 2004 ACJ 1086 (Pall avan Transport Corporation Ltd. vs. M.Anbumani),
relevant portion of which reads as follows:
1