Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 748 (1.25 seconds)
Documents citing Mrs. Helen C. Rebello & Ors vs Maharashtra State Road Transport ... on 18 September, 1998

Sri.Mariamma Apram vs A.V.Abraham on 24 August, 2009

The decision in Bhakra Beas Management Board v. Smt.Kanta Aggarwal and others {AIR 2008 SC 3118} rendered by a Bench of two Judges does not purport to overrule the judgment in Helen C. Rebello (Mrs) and others vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another {1999 (1) SCC 90}. There appears to be some reasoning also in regard to the component of family pension which appears to advance the case of the appellant. Family pension is not something which one gets only in the case of a death by accident. Pension is no bounty. It is essentially earned by the employee. Whether the person died as a result of accident or otherwise the widow would be entitled to family pension.
Kerala High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - K Joseph - Full Document

S.Sevagi vs State Express Transport Corporation ... on 10 December, 2015

10. The principle enunciated in the said decision is a fitting answer to the issue involved in this Appeal that in case the Claimant receives the benefit, as a consequence of injuries sustained, then he is not entitled for the same as compensation once again. But it does not cover the cases where the amount of payment received is not dependent upon the injury sustained on meeting with the accident. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the case relied by the learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent, which was rendered based on the LIC Policy, cannot be made applicable to the facts of the case. So far as LIC Policy is concerned, the Policy holder is entitled for the payment of entire premium on maturity or the heirs are entitled for the payment in the event of his death. The payment under the Life Insurance Policy does not depend upon the injury sustained in meeting with the accident. On the other hand, as far as the Medi-Claim Policy is concerned, the amount is payable to the Claimant when he sustained injuries in an accident. Hence, the compensation for the injuries sustained by him under the head Medical Treatment cannot be granted.
Madras High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - S Manikumar - Full Document

The Branch Manager vs Vijayalingam on 28 October, 2024

10.6.5.The issue of deduction of the mediclaim amount has been considered by the Hon'ble Thiru Justice Mohan Shantanagoudar (as he then was) in the case of Shaheed Ahmed Vs. Shankaranarayana Bhat and another reported in ILR 2008 Kar 3277 in detail upon consideration 15/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)No.85 of 2024 of the various precedents reported in the case of Helen C Rebello and others Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another reported in 1999 ACJ 10; in the case of B.Parimala vs. Riyaz Ahmed reported in 2002 ACJ 154; in the case of Leela Gupta and others vs. State of U.P.and others reported in 2005 ACJ 1739; in the case of Bhagat Singh Sohan Singh vs Om Sharma and others reported in 1983 ACJ 203; in the case of Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and another vs. Priyankreported in 2000 ACJ 701; in the case of Vrajesh Navnitlal Desai vs Bagyam reported in 2001 ACJ 65; and has held as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - V B Subbaroyan - Full Document

Divisional Manager The New India ... vs Smt. Satyabhama Tripathi And Others on 27 November, 2019

21. Thus, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court as above, it is established that the amount receivable by the wife of the deceased as family pension is not deductible from the income of deceased determined for calculation of compensation. It is also pertinent to note at this juncture that the Tribunal has already determined the income of deceased of lower side by disbelieving the salary of the deceased as security guard.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - V K Srivastava - Full Document

Smt. Gayitri Devi Wife Of Late Onkar Nath ... vs Election Commission Of India on 3 October, 2024

It has been further held that the principle discernible from the judgment passed in Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra SRTC (supra) is that if the amount would be due to the dependents of the deceased even otherwise, the same shall not be deductible from the compensation amount payable under the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 and it must be borne in mind that the 'loss of income' is a significant head under which compensation is claimed in 11 terms of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 and the quantum of 'loss of income' inter alia can be 'pay and wages' which otherwise would be earned by the deceased employee if he had survived the injury caused to him due to motor accident.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - A R Choudhary - Full Document

Narbahadur Nandkishor Prasad vs Jaherali K Shaikh on 11 July, 2018

However, appellant has contended in his appeal that the tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.7,00,000/- for entire medical expenses incurred by him and the tribunal ought not to have reduce the amount, which is reimbursed to the applicant under the medi claim contract with senor citizens plans of Unit Trust of Indian. For the purpose, applicant is relying upon the decision in case of Helen C. Rabellow vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation reported in 1999 ACJ 10. However, the impugned award shows no discussion regarding such total amount of medical expenditure incurred by the applicant, though judgments referred by the applicant has been discussed in para 20 of the judgment by the tribunal but ultimately it was held by the tribunal that those judgments are not applicable to the case of the applicant and, therefore, the tribunal has awarded only Rs.47,227/- towards medical expenses because original bills of such amount is produced at Exh. 70. Therefore, applicant has preferred an appeal before this Court contending that the tribunal ought to have awarded total Page 2 of 7 C/FA/2016/2012 IA ORDER amount of expenditure being Rs.2,67,970/- taking such stand in memo of appeal also. Unfortunately, though appellant is entitled to such amount of medical expenditure, and though there are several decisions to that effect, the co-ordinate bench has by above referred oral judgment dated 23.09.2014, dismissed the appeal and, therefore, applicant has preferred this application to review and recall such judgment dated 23.09.2014 and to restore such appeal for consideration of the same on merits and to stay implementation and execution of such judgment till pendency of this review petition.
Gujarat High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - S G Shah - Full Document

Smt. Gayitri Devi Wife Of Late Onkar Nath ... vs Election Commission Of India on 3 October, 2024

It has been further held that the principle discernible from the judgment passed in Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra SRTC (supra) is that if the amount would be due to the dependents of the deceased even otherwise, the same shall not be deductible from the compensation amount payable under the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 and it must be borne in mind that the 'loss of income' is a significant head under which compensation is claimed in 11 terms of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 and the quantum of 'loss of income' inter alia can be 'pay and wages' which otherwise would be earned by the deceased employee if he had survived the injury caused to him due to motor accident.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - A R Choudhary - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next