Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.55 seconds)
Documents citing The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Valsa @ Valsamma on 13 September, 2011

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Geethamani Alias Geetha on 17 March, 2021

16. The sheet-anchor of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the Tribunal ought to have followed the split multiplier method in the ratio of 2:9 and given full wages only for the multiplier 2 and half wages for the multiplier 9. Accordingly, the compensation under the head 'loss of dependency' ought to have been reduced using the split multiplier method as laid down in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Valsa and Kumaran MACA.No.722 OF 2013 10 v. Roy Mathew (supra).
Kerala High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - C S Dias - Full Document

National Insurance Company Limited vs National Insurance Company Limited on 12 March, 2021

9. Undisputedly, the deceased had only 4 ½ years service left. The Tribunal, in the impugned award, had given cogent reasons to adopt the split multiplier as laid down by the Division Benches of this Court In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Valsa and Kumaran v. Roy Mathew (supra). However, this Court without stating any reasons adopted multiplier 11 and awarded compensation on the full salary of the deceased even after the superannuation date. Similarly, this Court has awarded compensation for loss of consortium and also compensation for loss of love and affection which is RP.No.24 of 2020 in MACA.
Kerala High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - C S Dias - Full Document

Sijo Jose vs Rejender Kumar Saini on 14 January, 2020

26. In Kumaran, after considering the rival contentions, the Division Bench of this Court opined that, in both the decisions of the Apex Court in Madhusudhan as well as in Puttamma, the dictum laid is only to the effect that in the absence of any specific reasons and availability of evidence on record, split multiplier should not be adopted in a routine course and the multiplier as specified in Sarala Verma, which is affirmed in Reshma Kumari shall be adopted. But, in the case at hand, the specific reason mentioned for adopting different multiplicands for different periods, within the multiplier of 11 years, is based on evidence available and the reasoning mentioned thereof is well founded. Another Division Bench of this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Valsa [2015 (1) KHC 729] held that, while fixing the compensation a balancing of all essential factors, including disadvantages will have to be MACA. No. 2091 of 2009 -22- adopted by the Court. When there is a sure date of superannuation it cannot be ignored that there will be a reduction in the multiplicand. In case of a Government employee, it is sure that the deceased would earn only a monthly pension after his/her retirement. Accepting the arguments of the Insurance Company, the Division Bench in Valsa observed that, while taking the multiplier of 13 a reduction of salary going by the date of superannuation will be justified. Therefore, the Division Bench in Kumaran found no illegality or error committed by the Tribunal in adopting dictum contained in Valsa.
Kerala High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - A Narendran - Full Document

U.T.Shailaja Devi vs Kottaparamban Abdul Kareem on 14 February, 2020

22. In Kumaran, after considering the rival contentions, the Division Bench of this Court opined that, in both the decisions of the Apex Court in Madhusudhan as well as in Puttamma, the dictum laid is only to the effect that in the absence of any specific reasons and availability of evidence on record, split multiplier should not be adopted in a routine course and the multiplier as specified in Sarala Verma, which is affirmed in Reshma Kumari shall be adopted. But, in the case at hand, the specific reason mentioned for adopting different multiplicands for different MACA No.502 of 2007 17 periods, within the multiplier of 11 years, is based on evidence available and the reasoning mentioned thereof is well founded. Another Division Bench of this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Valsa [2015 (1) KHC 729] held that, while fixing the compensation a balancing of all essential factors, including disadvantages will have to be adopted by the Court. When there is a sure date of superannuation it cannot be ignored that there will be a reduction in the multiplicand. In case of a Government employee, it is sure that the deceased would earn only a monthly pension after his/her retirement. Accepting the arguments of the Insurance Company, the Division Bench in Valsa observed that, while taking the multiplier of 13 a reduction of salary going by the date of superannuation will be justified. Therefore, the Division Bench in Kumaran found no illegality or error committed by the Tribunal in adopting dictum contained in Valsa.
Kerala High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - A Narendran - Full Document

Vasantha vs S.Pushparaj on 10 March, 2020

25. In Kumaran, after considering the rival contentions, the Division Bench of this Court opined that, in both the decisions of the Apex Court in Madhusudhan as well as in Puttamma, the dictum laid is only to the effect that in the absence of any specific reasons and availability of evidence on record, split multiplier should not be adopted in a routine course and the multiplier as specified in Sarala Verma, which is affirmed in Reshma Kumari shall be adopted. But, in the case at hand, the specific reason mentioned for adopting different multiplicands for different periods, within the multiplier of 11 years, is based on evidence available and the reasoning mentioned thereof is well founded. Another Division Bench of this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Valsa [2015 (1) KHC 729] held that, while fixing the compensation MACA Nos.1513 of 2014 & 968 of 2014 19 a balancing of all essential factors, including disadvantages will have to be adopted by the Court. When there is a sure date of superannuation it cannot be ignored that there will be a reduction in the multiplicand. In case of a Government employee, it is sure that the deceased would earn only a monthly pension after his/her retirement. Accepting the arguments of the Insurance Company, the Division Bench in Valsa observed that, while taking the multiplier of 13 a reduction of salary going by the date of superannuation will be justified. Therefore, the Division Bench in Kumaran found no illegality or error committed by the Tribunal in adopting dictum contained in Valsa.
Kerala High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - A Narendran - Full Document

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd vs Jose Eapen on 25 July, 2018

5. There is nothing in evidence to show that the deceased was 41 at the time of death. Even going by the claim petition, the age of the deceased is shown as 46. The Tribunal had merely mentioned the age to be 41 as per the post-mortem certificate, which cannot be relied on to grant compensation or adopt a suitable multiplier. When there was a clear admission of age, the claimants ought to have with sufficient evidence proved the age of the deceased, who admittedly was a state M.A.C.A. No.2242 of 2015 [C] & Cross Objection No.98 of 2018 5 government employee. Obviously they decided to bank upon the lesser age shown in the post mortem certificate, which is only an approximation. Hence the age can only be adopted as 46; which is admitted in the claim petition. As for the multiplier to be applied, when 46 is taken as the age, the deceased had a period of service only for another 10 years. Then there has to be a split multiplier applied of 10 & 3 as has been laid down in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Valsa [2015 (1) KLT 781].
Kerala High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - K V Chandran - Full Document

Unknown vs Appellant(S)/2Nd on 29 April, 2015

In doing so, this Court is guided by the principle as laid down in Valsa's case, by a Division Bench of this Court, wherein, for a 47 year old deceased, the entire salary was taken for 10 years and half of the pension for the remaining 3 years on which the multiplier was applied. In the present case, the deceased had a service left of 3 years and hence, the multiplier has to be split as 3 and 8. The loss of income being computed at Rs.59,485/-, the total compensation payable on a multiplier of '3' would be Rs.21,41,460/- (59,485 X 12 X 3). The balance multiplier to be applied is '8'. Upon retirement, only half of the salary can be computed for loss. However, as has been pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents the deceased definitely had future prospects since he was an Academician and was a Professor, teaching History in an Aided College.
Kerala High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - K V Chandran - Full Document
1   2 Next