Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (1.18 seconds)
Documents citing Karnail Singh Wife Of Jarnail Singh And ... vs Balwinder Singh Son Of Anant Singh And ... on 17 January, 2013

Vikram vs Prince And Ors on 25 October, 2018

The deceased was a student of third semester, Printing Technology with Guru Gobind Singh Government Polytechnic Education Society, Cheeka District Kaithal. Taking a clue from the minimum wage coupled with educational qualification of the deceased, income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal is correct and affirmed. However, claimants shall be entitle to addition in income for future prospects @ 40%. Deduction for personal expenses allowed by the Tribunal is correct and affirmed as deceased was unmarried son of the claimants. As the deceased was 19 years of age, multiplier of 18 is admissible in the light of judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court Sarla Verma & others's case (supra), Munna Lal Jain and another's case (supra) and Pranay Sethi and others's case (supra). In this manner, loss of dependency is calculated at Rs.10,58,400/- [(7000 x 12 x 18) + (40% future prospects) - (50% deduction for personal expenses)].
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - R Mittal - Full Document

Krishan Alias Chanda @ Chandi Ram vs Deepak And Ors on 13 November, 2019

In this context, reference can be made to judgments of this Court Banwari Lal and another Vs. Ran Singh and others, FAO No.2191 of 2014, decided on 23.08.2016 and Karnail Singh and others vs. Balwinder Singh and another 2013(1) Vol. 169 PLR 774. In the given circumstances, findings of the Tribunal attributing contributory negligence to riders of the motorcycle cannot be allowed to sustain and are accordingly set aside. As a natural corollary, the claimants would be entitle to receive the entire compensation assessed by the Tribunal and additional compensation, if any, allowed by this Court.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - R Mittal - Full Document

Mast. R.N.Nithin Vasista vs Umesh D on 17 October, 2015

32. The petitioner's counsel also relied upon the judgment reported in 2014 ACJ 1762 (Karnail Singh and others vs Balwinder Singh and another) of Punjab and Haryana High Court. In this judgment also it is held riding of motor cycle with two pillion riders tantamounts to contributory negligence on the part of motorcyclist and pillion riders-held: - No; three persons travelling on a motor cycle may be guilty of traffic offence but there is no reason to make any inference regarding negligence as contributory by the only fact that three persons were going on a motor cycle and hitting from behind car dashed against a motor cycle from behind resulting in injuries to motor cyclist and two pillion riders.
Bangalore District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1