Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18648 (3.25 seconds)
Documents citing Mr. R.D. Hattangadi vs M/S Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 6 January, 1995

Jagannath Pal And Another vs Rakesh Kumar And Ors. on 14 February, 2020

In view of the aforesaid judgments of this Court and the fact that the appellant is a brilliant student as she has secured first rank in the 10th standard, she would have had a better future in terms of educational career to acquire basic or master's degrees in the professional courses and she could have got a suitable public or private employment but on account of permanent disablement she suffered due to injuries sustained by her in the accident, that opportunity is lost to her and therefore, she is entitled to compensation as per the law laid down by this Court in Raj Kumar [Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 : (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 164 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 1161] , R.D. Hattangadi [R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC 551 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 250] and Govind Yadav [Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 683 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 1082 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 82 : (2012) 1 SCC (L&S) 422] .
Allahabad High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - A Kumar - Full Document

Narender Singh S/O Late Sh. Chatter ... vs Himachal Road on 5 December, 2018

manner.   The   court   of   tribunal   shall   have   to   assess   the damages objectively and exclude from consideration   any speculation   or   fancy,   though   some   conjecture   with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as   a   result   of   such   injury.   This   means   that   he   is   to   be compensated   for   his   inability   to   lead   a   full   life,   his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C. K.   Subramonia   Iyer   V.   T.   Kunhikuttan   Nair MANU/SC/0011/1969   :   AIR   1970   SC   375,   R.D. Hattangadi   V.   Pest   Control   (   India)   Ltd.
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Managing Director, Puratchi ... vs S. Girish on 15 June, 2006

9. The reasoning of these judgments would show that in the matter of awarding compensation, the damages have to be assessed separately as one falling under pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which are actually incurred and capable of calculation on the basis of evidence produced. However, non-pecuniary damages are those which lacked arithmetical perfection, yet, need to be done on account of the injuries suffered leading to hardship, discomfort, frustration, mental stress in life, loss of quality of living and enjoyment in life. The loss of amenities of life may include a variety of factors which may have a restriction on the quality of life that one has to lead. It may be noted that monetary compensation may not bring back or restore the amputated leg. The Supreme Court held in (R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.):
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - C Venkataraman - Full Document

Ashok Kumar S/O Sh. Achchey Lal vs Himachal Road on 1 November, 2018

far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner.   The   court   of   tribunal   shall   have   to   assess   the damages objectively and exclude from consideration   any speculation   or   fancy,   though   some   conjecture   with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as   a   result   of   such   injury.   This   means   that   he   is   to   be compensated   for   his   inability   to   lead   a   full   life,   his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C. K.   Subramonia   Iyer   V.   T.   Kunhikuttan   Nair MANU/SC/0011/1969   :   AIR   1970   SC   375,   R.D. Hattangadi   V.   Pest   Control   (   India)   Ltd.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Both R/O E­365 vs Naseem on 16 April, 2018

4. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( Act for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should , to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner.   The   court   of   tribunal   shall   have   to   assess   the damages objectively and exclude from consideration   any speculation   or   fancy,   though   some   conjecture   with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as   a   result   of   such   injury.   This   means   that   he   is   to   be compensated   for   his   inability   to   lead   a   full   life,   his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C. K.   Subramonia   Iyer   V.   T.   Kunhikuttan   Nair MANU/SC/0011/1969   :   AIR   1970   SC   375,   R.D. Hattangadi   V.   Pest   Control   (   India)   Ltd.
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bablu S/O Madan Lal vs Amzad S/O Sher Ali on 4 January, 2019

fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court of tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C. K. Subramonia Iyer V. T. Kunhikuttan Nair MANU/SC/0011/1969 : AIR 1970 SC 375, R.D. Hattangadi V. Pest Control ( India) Ltd.
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Managing Director vs S.Sundaram on 28 April, 2014

4. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (`Act' for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376, R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467).
Madras High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - S Manikumar - Full Document

Raju Gupta S/O Sh. Madan Mohan Gupta vs Himachal Road on 8 October, 2018

reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as   a   result   of   such   injury.   This   means   that   he   is   to   be compensated   for   his   inability   to   lead   a   full   life,   his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C. K.   Subramonia   Iyer   V.   T.   Kunhikuttan   Nair MANU/SC/0011/1969   :   AIR   1970   SC   375,   R.D. Hattangadi   V.   Pest   Control   (   India)   Ltd.
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

United India Insurance Company Ltd vs Ponniappan .. 1St on 23 June, 2017

4. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376, R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467).
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Anil (Dar) vs Nitu (435/23Svr) on 30 October, 2025

This court referred to the pronouncements in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC 551; Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka (2009) 6 SCC 1; Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan (2009) 13 SCC 422; Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343. Govind Yadav spelt out these principles by stating that the courts should, "in determining the quantum of compensation payable to the victims of accident, who are disabled either permanently or temporarily. If the victim of the accident suffers permanent disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the loss of earning and his inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident."
Delhi District Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next