Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.34 seconds)
Documents citing U.P. State Road Transport Corporation ... vs Krishna Gopal Agarwal And Another on 5 February, 2019

National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Shailendra Kumar Gupta And Others on 28 February, 2019

38. This takes this Court to the third appeal preferred by the widow and the minor child the submission of Sri Sharve Singh as also, the submission made by Sri Anand Kumar Sinha-Advocate for Insurance Company will have to be answered to. Sri Sinha has submitted that the father-in-law namely, respondent/claimant in FAFO No.225 of 2002 has deposed on oath that he had learnt that the widow wanted to remarry and, therefore, no enhancement can be granted. The said submission has been countered by Sri Shavre Singh Advocate who has relied on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited Versus Smt. Baby and Others, 2017(1) TAC 368 ( All.) and Vimla Devi and others Versus Chaman and others, 1992 ACJ 1048 and has submitted that even if it is proved that the widow has remarried, it will not make any difference in the compensation to be awarded. It is further submitted by Sri Sarve Singh-Advocate on the decision of another reported in 2010LawSuit(SC) 1081 and in First Appeal From Order No. 75 of 2005 ( U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Krishna Gopal Agarwal and another and has contended that even if it is proved that the widow had in fact remarried then also the same cannot be made basis for not enhancing the compensation as submitted by Sri Anand Kumar Sinha-Advocate who had clarified that he is not submitting that the widow who may have remarried will not be entitled to the claim but she cannot claim for enhancement of compensation.
Allahabad High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - K Thaker - Full Document

Abhishek Jain vs Chhedi Lal And Ors. on 23 September, 2019

Further, on the basis of the pleadings and evidence led by the appellant/claimant as well as Sections 140, 163A and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short "Act of 1988") and judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ravinder Kumar Sharma (Supra), Banarsi (Supra), U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (Supra), Manju Beri (Supra) and Sarla Verma (Supra), we are taking note of objection taken by the learned counsel for U.P.S.R.T.C. to the effect that only dependent(s) are entitled to compensation or for enhancement of compensation and accordingly we are of the view that :
Allahabad High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - A Kumar - Full Document

Delhi Transport Corporation New Delhi vs Bhagwat Singh Bulandshahar on 9 January, 2020

8. I do not find any reason to interfere in the compensation awarded as it cannot be said that it is on the higher side. It is orally submitted by Sri Nigamendra Shukla relying on the decision in First Appeal From Order No. 75 of 2005 (U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Krishna Gopal Agarwal and another) decided on 5.2.2019 that this Court should award just compensation.
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - K Thaker - Full Document
1