Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22943 (2.15 seconds)
Documents citing Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. ... vs Smt. Beena Devi And 3 Others on 8 August, 2014

9. We are of the opinion that the rule of thumb evolved in Sarla Verma (supra) is to be applied to those cases where there was no concrete evidence on record of definite rise in income due to future prospects. Obviously, the said rule was based on assumption and to avoid uncertainties and inconsistencies in the interpretation of different courts, and to overcome the same.
Allahabad High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 3 - R Kumar - Full Document

Smt.Jhabara vs Sh.Krishan Yadav on 3 March, 2015

The three Judge Bench approved the two Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 with regard to the selection of multiplier. It further laid down that addition towards future prospects to the extent of 50% of the actual salary shall be made towards future prospects when the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years and addition of 30% should be made if the age of the deceased was between 40­50 years. No addition towards future prospects shall be made where the deceased was self­ employed or was getting a fixed salary without any provision of annual increment.
Delhi District Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Anuradha Bhattacharya vs Sh. Satyajeet on 16 December, 2014

Petitioner no.1 father of deceased can not be considered a dependent on deceased in view of judgment of Sarla Verma and Ors. vs Delhi Transport Corporation and Another(supra). In para 15 of affidavit petitioner no.2 stated that previously petitioner no.1 was employed as Lecturer of Physics in DAV College, Dehradun and he also taught as a visiting faculty in Universities of various countries and has devoted his life to society as a full time social worker. In the circumstances entire amount is awarded in favour of petitioner no.2/mother of deceased.
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

News Item Published In The Hind Business ... vs . Yashyashvi Rasayan Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.); on 11 June, 2021

In view of frequent accidents resulting in deaths and injuries, the Chief Secretaries of all the States/UTs may evolve a mechanism to ensure that the companies dealing with hazardous substance must forthwith pay compensation for deaths and injuries to the victims at least as per Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 wherever applicable or the principle of restitution laid down in Sarla Verma (supra), National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 to the victims either directly or through the District Magistrate.
National Green Tribunal Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - A K Goel - Full Document

Reliance Gen Ins Co Ltd vs Nageshwar Mishra & Ors. on 23 April, 2015

"11. The deceased was a diligent and outstanding student of medicine who could have pursued his MD after his graduation and reached greater heights. Today, medical practice is one of the most sought after and rewarding professions. With the tremendous increase in demand for medical professionals, their salaries are also on the rise. Therefore, we have no doubt in ascertaining the future income of the deceased at Rs 25,000 p.m. i.e. Rs 3,00,000 p.a. Further, deducting 1/3rd of the annual income towards personal expenses as per Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deo Patodi [(2009) 13 SCC 123 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 29 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 963] and applying the appropriate multiplier of 13, keeping in mind the age of the parents of the deceased, as per the guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma case [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002], we arrive at a total loss of dependency at Rs 26,00,000 [(Rs 3,00,000 minus 1/3 × Rs 3,00,000) × 13]......."
Delhi High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - G P Mittal - Full Document

Shri Shyam Singh vs Vikas Rathor on 31 January, 2015

was built in the multiplier. The three Judge Bench approved the two Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 with regard to the selection of multiplier. It further laid down that addition towards future prospects to the extent of 50% of the actual salary shall be made towards future prospects when the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years and addition of 30% should be made if the age of the deceased was between 40­50 years. No addition towards future prospects shall be made where the deceased was self­employed or was getting a fixed salary without any provision of annual increment.
Delhi District Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Smt. Varsha Sandeep Sabale And Ors on 2 January, 2024

28. On the issue of deduction towards personal and living expenses, in the light of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and others(supra) , the Tribunal has held that one-fourth has to be deducted as the number of dependent family members was six. Although the Appellant has submitted that the Tribunal wrongly calculated the dependency to be 3/4 th and the dependency ought to be calculated at 2/3 rd considering the widow and two minor children only, the Appellant has not produced any corroborative evidence regarding the non-dependency of the Respodents No. 4 to 6. Therefore I do not consider it necessary to deal with this issue.
Bombay High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - A Ahuja - Full Document

Roop Singh Yadav H/O, Deceased Meena ... vs Bankey Bihari Goods Carriers on 23 December, 2023

2023.12.23 15:15:02 +0530 right lower limb would certainly affect her working capacity, future prospects and therefore in the facts and circumstances, this Tribunal holds that the working capacity has reduced to 47% and the functional disability of injured is hereby assessed @ 47%. Admittedly, the injured's monthly income has already been assessed as Rs.19,572/-. As far as the age of injured at the time of accident is concerned, we may look into the photocopy of injured's Aadhar Card which are Ex. PW1/3 as well as photocopies of educational qualifications of injured Ex. PW14 (Colly), as per the said document, the date of birth of petitioner is 15.10.1996. As per the said document, the age of petitioner at the time of accident (i.e. 02.11.2019) would be 23 years. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.,(2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been upheld by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment dated 31.10.2017 given in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, the multiplier of '18' is held applicable for calculating the loss of future earnings of petitioner arising out of her above disability.
Delhi District Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next