Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.60 seconds)
Documents citing Sh. Subhash Chand S/O Sh. Prabhu Dayal vs Sh. Rulda Singh S/O Sh. Niranjan Singh ... on 12 February, 2007

Sh. Balram Yadav vs Ashok Kumar on 1 November, 2007

So the judgment relied upon by the ld. counsel for the respondent no. 3 in case titled as Subhash Chand Vs. Rulda Singh and another (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case, in view of the fact that in that case the Disability Certificate demonstrates only 25% permanent disability regarding right limb and lateron tribunal assessed to 10% permanent disability with regarding to whole body. In the present case since the permanent disability is 25% in the certificate in relation to the whole body, hence, in view of these facts, I take permanent disability of the petitioner as 25% with regard to the whole body. Petitioner in 15 his evidence has stated that this accident has effected his remaining life and carrier and he will not be able to perform his duty and daily routine work as earlier and as a policeman and his job requires good health and complete fitness but future prospects of services and chance of promotion will be badly affected due to his permanent disablement. However, petitioner has not produced any witness from his department to prove that the injuries received by the petitioner would affect his promotions. I have assessed the permanent disability of the petitioner as 25%, so compensation for his 25% permanent disability shall be about Rs.3,500/­ per month, which shall be Rs. 42,000/­ annually. The age of the petitioner is taken as 45 years at the time of accident, so a multiplier of 15 is adopted for compensation on account of permanent disability. Thus, a sum of Rs.6,30,000/­ is to be paid to the petitioner as compensation for the permanent disability. So, keeping in view the nature of injuries, income of the petitioner and age of the petitioner, I find it justified that it would be in the interest of justice if a sum of Rs.6,30,000/­ is paid to the petitioner on account of compensation for the permanent disability.
Delhi District Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Vikas Sharma vs Jagdish Prasad Ram on 29 August, 2009

39. Ld. Counsel for Insurer relied upon the cases of Subhash Chand (supra); D. Satyavati (supra);Devaraddi (supra); Suraj Parkash Khanna(supra); Bhura(supra); Harvinder Singh(supra); P.R. Sharma(supra) and CSS Rao(supra) and argued that permanent disability of the petitioner should be assessed as 15% in relation to whole body for working out the functional disability of petitioner for loss of earning capacity. Facts 16 emobodies in these prcedents are entirely different and distinguishable from facts of present case.
Delhi District Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Master Rahul S/O Sh. Ravi Nath vs ) Sh. Shailender Sharma S/O Sh. Gorakh ... on 1 December, 2010

Counsel for respondent no.4 cited the case law Subhash Chand Vs. Rulda Singh, II (2007) ACC 776 (Delhi) and argued that since the disability certificate does not point out what is the extent of disability qua the whole body, so the loss of earning capacity of the petitioner has to be taken at 10% and not at 25%. On the other hand counsel for the petitioner argued that this disability is to be further enhanced as left hand of the petitioner has become stiff and now he cannot work with the same capacity and force from his left hand which a normal person can do. It is also argued that stiffness of left hand would effect the future of the petitioner and his earning capacity permanently.
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Deepak Kumar vs Sh. Shriram Yadav on 25 September, 2009

18. So far as extent of permanent disability suffered by petitioner is concerned, learned counsel for respondent no.3 argued that in view of judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of SUBHASH CHAND vs RULDA SINGH, II (2007) ACC 776 and SURAJ PRAKASH KHANNA vs BALBIR SINGH, I (2008) ACC 468, the disability certified in Ex.PW5/1 being 35% only in relation to left hip and knee joint, the disability in relation to full body cannot be more than 10%. In the case of SUBHASH CHAND, hon'ble Delhi High Court upheld the view taken by learned tribunal that where the disability certified was 25% with regard to one limb, with regard to complete body the disability could not be more than 10%. In the case of SURAJ PRAKASH, disability certified by board was 58% but the treating doctor in the box opined the disability to be 40%, which was taken as criteria. In my Suit No. 86/09 Page 9 of 14 pages 10 considered view, neither of the judgments cited on behalf of respondent no.3 is applicable to the factual matrix of present case for reasons as discussed herein after.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ramesh Chander vs Sachin Juneja on 14 November, 2007

In view of the evidence of the Doctor it is evident that the petitioner would not be able to work in the same manner he was doing before as well as in view of the findings of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case titled as Subhash Chand Vs. Rulda Singh and another reported in II (2007) 19 ACC 776 and evidence of PW7, I find it justify that loss of earning capacity of the petitioner can be taken maximum as 5% to the whole body, so I assess the loss of earning capacity of petitioner as 5% to the whole body. The loss of earning capacity of the petitioner is assessed at 5%, so his 5% loss of income shall be Rs.250/­ per month which shall be Rs.3,000/­ annually. The age of the petitioner is taken as about 32 years for the purpose of calculation of multiplier at the time of accident, so a multiplier of 17 is adopted on the annual loss of income of Rs.3,000/­. Thus, a sum of Rs.54,000/­ is to be paid to the petitioner for the loss of his future earning on account of permanent disability.
Delhi District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Wahid Hussain S/O Shri Waris Ali vs Rajesh S/O Sh. Bhagwan Dass ...Driver on 15 December, 2010

that the disability has to be taken with respect to the whole body and cited judgment of our own High Court titled as Subhash Chand v. Rulda Singh 2007 II AD (DELHI) 636. It was held that the disability certificate was granted for giving benefit to handicap persons and disability of 25% was given. The tribunal had taken the same as 10% disability to the whole body. The order was upheld by our own High Court.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Manoj Sharma Aged About 25 Years vs Smt. Asha Sharma on 6 September, 2010

14. Ld. counsel for respondent no. 3 placed reliance on "Subash Chand vs Sh. Rulda Singh" reported as 2007 II AD DELHI 636, where the Hon'ble Delhi High Court upheld the decision of tribunal of taking disability, as 10% in relation to whole MACT No. 76/10 Page 3/5 body when the permanent disability in regard to right limb was 25%. Under the facts and circumstances of the present case the percentage of disability in relation to whole body can be considered as 2%. Therefore the loss of earning capacity due to disability can be calculated by multiplying the annual income with percentage of disability and with multiplier of 18 (as the age of the petitioner is 25 years at the time of accident). The total loss in earning capacity on account of disability comes to Rs. 21,600/- (5000x0.02x12x18). Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, I consider the following amount to be the just compensation to the petitioner:-
Delhi District Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1