Mr. Lalit Mohan vs Mr. Dalbeer Singh on 15 May, 2019
15. Further, as per the Keith Rowe Vs. Prashant Sagar & ors. MAC
appeal no.601 of 2007 decided on 15.01.2010 judgement where
Lalit Mohan & Ors. Vs. Dalbeer Singh & Ors.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 232 (3.11 seconds)Documents citing
Keith Rowe vs Prashant Sagar & Ors. on 15 January, 2010
Ms. Preeti Bedi vs Mr. Bhanwar Singh on 6 December, 2018
In case, where the petitioners / claimants were not financially
dependent upon the victim, the illustration given in Keith Rowe Vs.
Prashant Sagar & ors. MAC appeal no.601 of 2007 decided on
15.01.2010, by the Hon'ble Court are helpful which reads as under:
Pankaj Kashyap vs Pradeep Kumar on 28 March, 2023
15. Further, as per the Keith Rowe Vs. Prashant Sagar & ors. MAC appeal
no.601 of 2007 decided on 15.01.2010 judgement where the claimants are non-
dependent spouse/childeren/ parents claiming on behalf of the estate, the saving can
be taken 1/4th where the non-dependents are having independent establishments.
PW1/ petitioner no. 1 in his cross examination stated that he is running a shop of
surgical items under the name and style M/s M.M. Scientific and the owner of the
said firm is his younger brother (petitioner no. 2). He has further stated that the firm
which was being run by his deceased father is not in operation / closed. This shows
that both the petitioners being the sons of the victim are having independent
establishment / business which is different from that of their father / victim.
Deduction is taken accordingly as 1/4th.
Mr. Saroj Chaudhary vs Mr. Lalu Ram (Driver Of Vehicle ... on 21 December, 2018
In case, where the petitioners / claimants were not
financially dependent upon the victim, the illustration given in Keith Rowe
Vs. Prashant Sagar & ors. MAC appeal no.601 of 2007 decided on
15.01.2010, by the Hon'ble Court are helpful which reads as under:
Mr. Bhagwan Dass vs Mr. Munna Lal Sharma on 23 January, 2019
In case, where the petitioners / claimants were not financially
dependent upon the victim, the illustration given in Keith Rowe Vs.
Prashant Sagar & ors. MAC appeal no.601 of 2007 decided on
15.01.2010, by the Hon'ble Court are helpful which reads as under:
Mr. Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Nagpal vs Mr. Bhanwar Singh on 4 December, 2018
In case, where the petitioners / claimants were not financially
dependent upon the victim, the illustration given in Keith Rowe Vs.
Prashant Sagar & ors. MAC appeal no.601 of 2007 decided on
15.01.2010, by the Hon'ble Court are helpful which reads as under:
Dr.Mihir Shreyas Munshi vs Union Of India on 1 March, 2014
30.In Keith Rowe vs Prashant Sagar & Ors(supra) the Hon'ble High Court
of Delhi held that:
Lrs Of Tapan Gupta vs Anil Singh on 18 February, 2026
S.No. Name Age Relation
(i) Bhuvan Gupta 27 years Brother
Computation of Compensation
S.No. Heads Awarded by the Claims
Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased (A) Rs.8,112/-
8. Add-Future Prospects (B) 40% = Rs.3,244.8/-
9. Less-Personal expenses of
the 85% as brother of the
deceased (C ) deceased being not
dependent upon income of
deceased, as per Keith Rowe
Vs. Prashant Sagar & Ors
MAC. APP. No. 601/2007
decided on 15 January-2010
Ms. Lajjawati vs Mr. Mohan Vashisth on 18 July, 2018
21. As the deceased was a married, having a family, his saving would be hardly
1/3rd as it was held in Keith Rowe Vs. Prashant Sagar & ors. MAC appeal
no.601 of 2007 decided on 15.01.2010, by the Hon'ble Court which has
given various illustrations and illustration no.(v) reads as under:
Sandeep Kumar vs Mr. Paras Kamboj on 14 May, 2019
In view of the findings in Keith Rowe Vs. Prashant Sagar & ors.
MAC appeal no.601 of 2007 decided on 15.01.2010, it has also
been settled that multiplier would however remain same and it is
only the head under which the petitioner would likely to succeed
would change.