Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1957 (4.39 seconds)
Documents citing Syed Sadiq Etc vs Divisional Manager,United India ... on 16 January, 2014

Sanmuga Vadivu vs Manivannan C on 29 November, 2023

"11. However, the Tribunal had accepted the views, principles and the method of income arrived by the Apex Court in Syed Sadiq Vs. United India Insurance Company, reported in 2014 (1) TNMAC 459 case. In the said case the Hon'ble Apex Court fixed the monthly notional income at Rs.6,500/- for a vegetable vendor, who sustained injuries in the accident which occurred in the year 2008. The Tribunal also took the same figure of Rs.6,500/- for the deceased who met with accident and died during the year 2014. However, the Tribunal failed to consider that the accident occurred during the year 2014 and other factors as mentioned below before fixing the monthly salary of the deceased.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Karthick vs Venkatesan on 26 November, 2015

6.Therefore, in the light of the above, since the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SYED SADIQ ETC., vs. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. reported in 2014 [1] TNMAC 459 [SC] has fixed Rs.6,500/- as notional monthly income of a vegetable vendor, in the present case also the claimant being carpenter, this Court has no hesitation to fix the same amount of Rs.6,500/- as notional monthly income.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - T Raja - Full Document

Kaliyan vs Babu on 29 May, 2015

Though initially, addition to the income to provide for future prospects was applied only for computing loss of dependency, in Syed Sadiq and Others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited [supra] the said principle was applied for calculating the compensation payable under the head loss of earning capacity/compensation for permanent disability. Computed in the light of the principles laid down in the aforesaid decision the compensation payable to the appellant as determined above will have to be enhanced by 30% for the reason that he was aged below 47 years. Consequently, we award to the appellant/claimant a further sum of Rs.1,76,400/- towards future prospects. The appellant/claimant will thus be entitled to an aggregate sum of Rs.7,64,400/- (Rs.1,76,400 + Rs.5,88,000) as compensation for permanent disability. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has by the impugned award, awarded only a sum of Rs.1,04,400/- as compensation for permanent disability. The appellant claimant will therefore be entitled to a further sum of Rs.6,60,000/- as compensation for permanent disability over and above the compensation awarded by the tribunal.
Kerala High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - P N Ravindran - Full Document

Madan vs Reliance General Insurance on 26 March, 2015

32) The petitioner has adduced the evidence of employer and produced salary certificate and proved that he SCCH - 11 40 MVC No.801/2014 was drawing salary of Rs.28,000/- per month. As per evidence of PW.2, petitioner sustained whole body disability at 18%, but he has admitted in this cross-examination that, he wrongly calculated the disability to the whole body and actual disability is 11%. The age of the petitioner is shown as 24% in medical records. He has not produced any other documents about his age. If the age of the petitioner is taken in between 21-25 years, the multiplier applicable to the facts of the case is 17. As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Syed Sadiq and others Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, the 50% is to be added towards future prospectus of income. If the income of the petitioner is taken at Rs.28,000/- and if 50% is added towards loss of future income, it will be Rs.42,000/-. If 1/3rd amount is deducted towards personal expenses, the actual loss of income will be Rs.28,000/-. If the income of the petitioner is taken at Rs.28,000/- per month, the loss of income will be calculated as under -
Bangalore District Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Universal Sompo General Insurance vs K.Ramamurthy on 26 September, 2016

Even the award of compensation with regard to other heads also cannot be found fault with, since the learned Tribunal following the ruling of Apex Court in the case of Syed Sadiq and others vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Reported in 2014 ACJ 627 and Santhosh Devi vs. National Insurance Company and others reported in 2012 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC), has awarded the compensation under various heads. Therefore, this Court is not able to find any infirmity in the impugned award.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - T Raja - Full Document

N.Srinivas vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Co on 4 February, 2021

In view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2014 ACJ 627 in case of Syed Sadiq and others Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., since the petitioner is aged between 40-50 years, he is entitled for 25% of addition to the income for calculation of future prospects. Then it comes to Rs.7,500/- per month (i.e., Rs.6,000 + Rs.1,500=Rs.7,500)
Bangalore District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next