citedby: 53696254

Ningapaa S/O Beerappa Pujari vs Lions Cojprehensive Eye Care Fundation ... on 22 January, 2018

19. For the said facts the High Court of Madras relying on the judgment in R.Mallika and others Vs. A Babu and others as above held that "Therefore, Claims Tribunal, finding that the offending vehicle did not have a valid goods carriage permit, rightly fastened the liability on the owner of the van"

Karnataka High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - L N Swamy - Full Document

Manikandan vs P.Palani on 12 March, 2020

57.One of us (Justice N.KIRUBAKARAN) directed the State Government to implement S.129 of Motor Vehicles Act by making wearing of helmet compulsory, invoking Article 226 suo motu in the case arising out of Motor Accident claim in R.Mallika and others v. A.Babu and others in C.M.A.No.3235 of 2014 on 08.06.2015. Directions were given in paragraph 48 of the said CMA order and the same is usefully extracted hereunder:

Madras High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Padmavathi vs Athimoolam on 4 January, 2024

12. This Court has elaborately dealt with the instances of wearing of helmet by quoting the details of death cases due to non- wearing of helmet in R. Mallika and others vs. A. Babu and others [C.M.A.No.3235 of 2014,decided on 08.06.2015] and therefore, 15% negligence has to be fixed on the rider of the two wheeler for not wearing the helmet and accordingly, 15% negligence is fixed on the rider of the two wheeler.”

Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kalamani vs M.I. Mansoor on 9 February, 2024

12. This Court has elaborately dealt with the instances of wearing of helmet by quoting the details of death cases due to non-wearing of helmet in R. Mallika and others vs. A. Babu and others [C.M.A.No.3235 of 2014,decided on 08.06.2015] and therefore, 15% negligence has to be fixed on the rider of the two wheeler for not wearing the helmet and accordingly, 15% negligence is fixed on the rider of the two wheeler.”

Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kalamani vs M.I. Mansoor on 9 February, 2024

12. This Court has elaborately dealt with the instances of wearing of helmet by quoting the details of death cases due to non-wearing of helmet in R. Mallika and others vs. A. Babu and others [C.M.A.No.3235 of 2014,decided on 08.06.2015] and therefore, 15% negligence has to be fixed on the rider of the two wheeler for not wearing the helmet and accordingly, 15% negligence is fixed on the rider of the two wheeler.”

Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kalamani vs M.I. Mansoor on 9 February, 2024

12. This Court has elaborately dealt with the instances of wearing of helmet by quoting the details of death cases due to non-wearing of helmet in R. Mallika and others vs. A. Babu and others [C.M.A.No.3235 of 2014,decided on 08.06.2015] and therefore, 15% negligence has to be fixed on the rider of the two wheeler for not wearing the helmet and accordingly, 15% negligence is fixed on the rider of the two wheeler.”

Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Manikandan vs P.Palani on 12 March, 2020

57.One of us (Justice N.KIRUBAKARAN) directed the State Government to implement S.129 of Motor Vehicles Act by making wearing of helmet compulsory, invoking Article 226 suo motu in the case arising out of Motor Accident claim in R.Mallika and others v. A.Babu and others in C.M.A.No.3235 of 2014 on 08.06.2015. Directions were given in paragraph 48 of the said CMA order and the same is usefully extracted hereunder:

Madras High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 46 - Full Document

Rajendran vs Prabhaharan on 22 November, 2024

12. This Court has elaborately dealt with the instances of wearing of helmet by quoting the details of death cases due to non-wearing of helmet in R. Mallika and others vs. A. Babu and others [C.M.A.No.3235 of 2014,decided on 08.06.2015] and therefore, 15% negligence has to be fixed on the rider of the two wheeler for not wearing the helmet and accordingly, 15% negligence is fixed on the rider of the two wheeler.”

Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Devi vs Unicorn Logistics India Pvt. Limited on 1 October, 2018

10. From the materials on record, it is seen that the deceased was second year Catering Technology Student and aged http://www.judis.nic.in 5 about 20 years at the time of accident and considering the age and course in which he was studying catering college and good will of the deceased getting decent and well paid job, the notional income fixed by the Tribunal is very meagre and hence, the same has to be enhanced. The Vice Principal of College deposed that the batch mates of deceased got appointment in well paid jobs in the campus interview are well placed in life. As per the Judgment of this Court reported in 2015(2) TNMAC 171 in the case of R.Mallika and others Vs. A. Babu and others, and considering the fact that the deceased would have got decent job in future, the notional income of the deceased is fixed at Rs.12,000/- per month. Since the deceased was aged about 20 years, the Tribunal considering the age granted 40% enhancement towards future prospects and deducted 50% for his personals expenses and applied multiplier 18. In view of same, the loss of income is arrived as follows:

Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - V M Velumani - Full Document

Devi vs Unicorn Logistics India Pvt. Limited on 1 October, 2018

10. From the materials on record, it is seen that the deceased was second year Catering Technology Student and aged http://www.judis.nic.in 5 about 20 years at the time of accident and considering the age and course in which he was studying catering college and good will of the deceased getting decent and well paid job, the notional income fixed by the Tribunal is very meagre and hence, the same has to be enhanced. The Vice Principal of College deposed that the batch mates of deceased got appointment in well paid jobs in the campus interview are well placed in life. As per the Judgment of this Court reported in 2015(2) TNMAC 171 in the case of R.Mallika and others Vs. A. Babu and others, and considering the fact that the deceased would have got decent job in future, the notional income of the deceased is fixed at Rs.12,000/- per month. Since the deceased was aged about 20 years, the Tribunal considering the age granted 40% enhancement towards future prospects and deducted 50% for his personals expenses and applied multiplier 18. In view of same, the loss of income is arrived as follows:

Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - V M Velumani - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results