Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (0.44 seconds)
Documents citing Vinod Kumar Shrivastava vs Ved Mitra Vohra And Ors. on 10 December, 1969

Klaus Mittelbachert vs East India Hotels Ltd. on 3 January, 1997

(112) To sum up, the plaintiff is entitled to the following amount of damages on the following heads : Head of damages Claimed Allowed Special (or pecuniary) damages Loss of salary until Dm 1,72,500.00 Dm 1,28,206.00 the filing of the suit (judgment pr.97) Future Loss of Income Dm 40,00,000.00 Nil Future Loss of Pension Dm 3,00,000.00 Nil Actual expenses incurred on plaintiff's treatment- In India (judgment pr.104) Rs. 25,000.00 Rs. 15,847.00 In Germany Dm 3,50,000.00 Dm 5,00,000.00 Expenses on special diet (judgment pr.107) Dm 31,200.00 Other expenses actually incurred (judgment pr.109) Dm 2,68,515.87 Expenses incurred by wife on commuting for attending to the plaintiff (judgment pr.110) Dm 12,000.00 Total, Rs. 15,847.00 Dm 4,39,921.87 Less- Amount received from insurance (judgment Dm 2,80,000.00 pr.111) Net Total Dm 1,59,921.87 General ( or non-pecuniary) damages Pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life. Dm 3,00,000.00 -For pain and suffering } (judgment pr 104 & 105} Rs. 18,00,000.00 } Dm 3,00,000.00 -for loss of expectation} of life (judgment pr 103 & 105)} Dm 3,81,600.00 Total Dm 3,00,000.00 Grand Total Rs. 15,847.00 Dm 4,59,921.87 (113) The Dm deserves to be converted into rupees at the current rate of exchange which is DM= Rs. 22.45 ( the rate as on 2.1.97 as confirmed by the RBI). Calculated at this rate Dm 4,59,921.87 stand converted to Rs.1,02,71,365.98. The plaintiff has thus proved his entitlement to damages quantified at Rs.1,03,25,245.98. The decree shall however, remain confined to Rs.50,00,000.00 as prayed for by the plaintiff. Issue NO.11 In a suit for recovery of unliquidated damages interest from date of suit can be allowed but not for a period prior to that [ Vinod Kumar vs. Ved Mitra ]. No provision other than S. 34 of the Civil Procedure Code has been brought to my notice under which interest may be claimed or allowed by or to the plaintiff.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 30 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Madhu vs Narendra Kumar And Ors. on 28 July, 1988

(d) Regarding compensation: Admittedly the girl remained under plaster for about 1 1/2 months, there was a compound fracture in lower end of right tibia. Though there is no evidence of limping or any other deformity, even in such cases this court has awarded compensation of about Rs. 5,000/-. See Vinod Kumar Shrivastava v. Ved Mitra Vohra 1970 ACJ 189 (MP). Therefore, an award of Rs. 5,000/-would be just and proper compensation in the circumstances of the case instead of Rs. 2,000/-.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Union Of India (Uoi) vs Laxmi Pati And Anr. on 26 August, 1994

8. Reference was made in the above decision to the provisions of the Interest Act, 1839, containing only one section empowering the court to allow interest "upon all debts or sums certain payable at a certain time or otherwise" from the time when such debts or sums certain were payable. The provision relates to interest prior to the date of the suit. The provisions in the Interest Act, 1978, are very comprehensive. Under Section 2, "Court" includes a Tribunal and an Arbitrator. Section 3 of the Act deals with the pre-litigation interest in respect of debt or damages. In proceedings which do not relate to debt, interest may be awarded from the date mentioned in this regard in written notice given by the person entitled or the person making the claim to the person liable that interest will be claimed. According to Section 3 of the Interest Act, 1978, interest can be awarded for the period prior to the proceedings if a written notice had been given to the person liable to pay the damages indicating that interest will be claimed. If that be so, there is no reason to hold, in principle, that interest is not awardable in regard to damages from the date of proceedings. That is because the proceedings or the application itself must be deemed to be anintimation that interest will be claimed.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 19 - U Bhat - Full Document

Smt. Gulab Devi Sohaney vs Govt. Of Madhya Pradesh And Anr. on 29 September, 1970

12. Before us it is urged for the first time, that interest should be allowed on the amount of damages, from the date of death till realisation. The contention can hardly be accepted for a variety of reasons. First of all, no such claim was ever made before the Claims Tribunal. Secondly, no interest can be awarded for the period prior to the institution of the proceedings, as no interest can be had on unliquidated damages. See, Vinod Kumar v. Ved Mitra, 1970 MPLJ 306 = (AIR 1970 Madh Pra 172). As stated in that case, the Claims Tribunal has, however, the power to award interest (a) from the date of the application to the date of the award and (b) from the date of the award to the date of payment, in a proper case. While we would respectfully follow the same view, we do not think that the claim for interest is justified in the circumstances of the present case. The Claims Tribunal has taken a generous view in granting compensation at a flat rate of Rs. 100/- per month for a period of 15 years, without making any deduction. The decided cases under the Fatal Accidents Act show that since the claimant gets a lump sum and because of uncertainties of life, such as the deceased or the claimant might die before the expiry of their normal span of life, a deduction of 10 to 20 per cent from the amount of pecuniary benefit is usually made. The reasons for such deduction are based on justice and fair play between the parties and, therefore, a similar deduction should, in our opinion, also be made even in claims under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. For all these reasons, we do not think it just to award interest on damages.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 9 - A P Sen - Full Document

Union Of India (Uoi) vs Smt. Laxmipati And Anr. on 26 August, 1994

8. Reference was made in the above decision to the provisions of the Interest Act, 1839 containing only one section empowering the Court to allow interest "upon all debts or sums certain payable at a certain time or otherwise" from the time when such debts or sums certain were payable. The provision relates to interest prior to the date of the suit. The provisions in the Interest Act, 1978 are very comprehensive. Under Section 2(a), 'Court' includes a Tribunal and an arbitrator. Section 3 of the Act deals with the pre-litigation interest in respect of debt or damages. In proceedings which do not relate to debt, interest may be awarded from the date mentioned in this regard in written notice given by the person entitled or the person making the claim to the person liable that interest will be claimed. According to Section 3 of the interest Act, 1978, interest can be awarded for the period prior to the proceedings if a written notice had been given to the person liable to pay the damages indicating that interest will be claimed. If that be so, there is no reason to hold, in principle, that interest is not awardable in regard to damages from the date of proceedings. That is because the proceedings or the application itself must be deemed to be an intimation that interest will be claimed.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 8 - U Bhat - Full Document

Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. ... vs Mrs. Kamal Kamini Das And Ors. on 19 November, 1971

In view of the fact that they made a fabulous claim which has been almost reduced to half and for that reason the litigation was unnecessarily protracted, we would allow interest at 6% per annum from the date the award was made by the Tribunal as was done in 1970 Ace CJ 189 = (AIR 1970 Madh Pra 172), (Vinod Kumar Shrivastava v. Ved Mitra Vohra).
Orissa High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 19 - Full Document

Subhash Chander vs Ram Singh And Ors. on 23 September, 1971

However, Vinod Kumar Shrivastava's case, (supra) is somewhat similar to the instant case. In that case there was no appreciable permanent disability in spite of the compound fracture of Tibia and Fibula resulting in immobilisation of the leg for 3 months. The claimant was aged 17 years and was a student. In the instant case, the appellant is admittedly not in a position to walk comfortably without a surgical shoe and if he would walk without that shoe he is bound to get pain. He would not be able to take part in any activity without that shoe. He will be debarred from taking employment, because of the permanent defect, in certain avenues of life. In these circumstances, in my opinion, the award of Rs. 3,000/- by the Tribunal under the heading "probable future loss by reason of incapacity and diminished capacity of work" is quite on the low side.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next