Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1025 (1.24 seconds)
Documents citing Kajal vs Jagdish Chand on 5 February, 2020

Dilna Dineshan, Represented By Father ... vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Kannur on 22 February, 2022

"13. As earlier noted, the appellant has suffered 69% permanent disability and without assistance, cannot perform everyday functions. The claimant with seriously impaired cognitive and physical capabilities would surely need full time assistance even for the confined life that he is leading. In such circumstances, the disabled claimant cannot be expected to rely only upon gratuitous services of his well-wishers and family members. Importantly, the presiding judge in the Tribunal himself noticed that the claimant would require the assistance of a bystander/attendant for all his movements. Consequently, bearing in mind the need for assisted living and what was said in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, it is found necessary to add the expenses for service of an attendant for the claimant. Since no material is produced to quantify the expenses for the attendant, making a conservative estimate, Rs.5,000/- per month appears to be the bare minimum. It is therefore deemed appropriate to quantify the annual expenses at Rs.60,000/- and applying the multiplier of 18, the additional compensation payable under the bystander head is quantified at Rs.10,80,000/-.
Kerala High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - C S Dias - Full Document

Bharti Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd. ... vs Avesh Zubir Ahmed Khan Minor Thr. Next ... on 18 February, 2026

16. The Tribunal has calculated the compensation amount by rightly taking into consideration the age of the Claimant and multiplier as per the judgment in case of Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand and ors. (supra). This Court, therefore, finds no reason/justification to cause interference therein. In so far as the future medical expenses granted at the rate of Rs.10,000/- is concerned, doctor has specifically stated about the requirement of more than Rs.10 lakhs to 12 lakhs for future medical expenses. Similarly, having regard to the nature of injury caused to the Claimant and the disability, he would require attendant and hence, the compensation granted on both these counts is found reasonable. Similar is the case with compensation under the heads of pain and sufferings and loss of marital prospects, this Court finds no reason to cause interference in the impugned judgment and order.
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sahil vs Ashish Kumar And Others on 28 January, 2026

In Kajal's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that the multiplier system must be followed to determine attendant charges, taking into account factors such as longevity, inflation, interest rates, and the uncertainties of life. The Court also highlighted that an individual with severe disabilities requires dedicated attendants, even if they are 15 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 02-02-2026 21:34:31 ::: -16- FAO-1675-2025 not medically trained, to ensure proper care and prevent further complications such as bedsores.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - S P Sharma - Full Document

Dheeraj vs Mohd. Hasroo And Ors on 29 July, 2024

In view of the ratio laid down in the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand (supra) and in case of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Anju Mahajan vs. Nasir Ali and others (supra) for ascertaining future attendant charges, multiplier should be applied as per the age of the petitioner. In this case petitioner was of the age of around 05 years at the time of accident and presently he is about 07 years old, therefore as per the M.V. Act multiplier would be applied of 18. Therefore petitioner is entitled for future attendant charges on the basis of minimum wages of attendant which comes out to be Rs.35,65,296/- (Rs.1,98,072 X
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Master Yogesh Kumar ... vs Abhishek Singh Kushawah (Iffco Tokio) on 6 September, 2025

24. As a matter of fact, the petitioner is required to be taken care of by an attendant all the time given his physical condition and mental health and therefore multiplier system is considered in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of "Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand & Ors." AIR 2020 Supreme Court 776'(Supra)'' for granting the MACT No. 549/20 Master Yogesh Vs. Abhishek Singh Khushwah & Ors. Page No. 18/29 Digitally signed PANKAJ SHARMA by PANKAJ SHARMA Date: 2025.09.06 11:25:58 +0530 attendant charges. Since, the child would be needing attendant through out his life as his chances of recovery are almost negligible in near future. Therefore, a pragmatic approach has to be adopted for quantifying the attendant charges by taking a practical view of the remuneration of an attendant. The cost of an attendant is deteremined as Rs.5,000/- per month for the purpose of computation of compesnation. Accordingly, the attendant charges have to be quantified following the computation which is as under:-
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next