Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13714 (1.52 seconds)
Documents citing Reshma Kumari & Ors vs Madan Mohan & Anr on 2 April, 2013

Sapna Talwar W/O Late Sh.Madan Lal ... vs Sh.Raj Singh @ Nasir Ali on 16 July, 2016

5. Against the above backdrop, by judgment dated 22.01.2016 passed in MAC Appeal No.956/2012 (Sunil Kumar vs. Pyar Mohd.), this Court has found it proper to follow the view taken earlier by a learned single judge in MAC Appeal No.189/2014 (HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Lalta Devi & Ors.) decided on 12.01.2015, presently taking the decision in Reshma Kumari (Supra) as the binding precedent, till such time the law on the subject of future prospects for those who are "self-employed" or engaged in gainful employment at a "fixed salary" is clarified by a larger bench of the Supreme Court".
Delhi District Court Cites 78 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pappu Singh & Others vs Gammon India And Anr on 5 February, 2026

It cannot be a pittance. Though the discretion vested in the tribunal is quite wide, yet it is obligatory on the part of the tribunal to be guided by the expression, that is, "just compensation". The determination has to be on the foundation of evidence brought on record as regards the age and income of the deceased and thereafter the apposite multiplier to be applied. The formula relating to multiplier has been clearly stated in Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] and it has been approved in Reshma Kumari [Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, (2013) 9 SCC 65 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 191 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 826] . The age and income, as stated earlier, have to be established by adducing evidence. The tribunal and the courts have to bear in mind that the basic principle lies in pragmatic computation which is in proximity to reality. It is a well-accepted norm that money cannot substitute a life lost but an effort has to be made for grant of just compensation having uniformity of approach. There has to be a balance between the two extremes, that is, a windfall and the pittance, a bonanza and the modicum.
Delhi High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

Icici Lombard General Insurance ... vs Of on 19 September, 2016

facts also may not hold the apt binding judicial precedent qua the relevant fact. Reiteratedly with the aforesaid verdicts of the Hon'ble Apex Court standing pronounced by a Bench strength holding of congruity with the bench strength which pronounced the earlier verdict reported in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shanti rt Pathak (Smt.) and others (2007) 10 SCC 1, also with the pronouncement of a verdict by the Hon'ble Apex Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shanti Pathak (Smt.) and others (2007) 10 SCC 1 occurring prior to the pronouncement of verdicts by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Reshma Kumari and others vs. Madan Mohan and another (2013) 9 SCC 65 and Munna Lal Jain and another Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others (2015) 6 SCC 347 it may within the principle held in Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community and another vs. State of Maharashtra and another (2005) 2 SCC 673 whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court has held qua an earlier verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered by a Bench of co-equal coram vis.a.vis the coram of Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble Apex Court which pronounced the latter verdict may be constituting a binding precedent upon the congruous coram of Hon'ble Judges of the Apex ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:15:19 :::HCHP 12 Court which pronounced the latter verdict whereas when in departure of the aforesaid principle the latter judgements of the Hon'ble Apex Court when stood rendered by a Bench strength equal in number to .
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S Thakur - Full Document

Manju Devi vs United India Insurance Company Ltd on 11 November, 2025

58. The controversy does not end here. The question still remains whether there should be no addition where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 thinks it appropriate not to add any amount and the same has been approved in Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, (2013) 9 SCC 65 . Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that salary does not remain the same. When a person is in a permanent job, there is always an enhancement due to one reason or the other. To lay down as a thumb rule that there will be no addition after 50 years will be an unacceptable concept. We are disposed to think, there should be an addition of 15% if the deceased is between the age of 50 to 60 years and there should be no addition thereafter. Similarly, in case of self-employed or person on fixed salary, the addition should be 10% between the age of 50 to 60 years. The aforesaid yardstick has been fixed so that there can be consistency in the approach by the tribunals and the courts.
Patna High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - J Kumar - Full Document

Ganesh Das And Anr vs Vinay Kumar Chaubay And Ors on 7 November, 2025

58. The controversy does not end here. The question still remains whether there should be no addition where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 thinks it appropriate not to add any amount and the same has been approved in Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, (2013) 9 SCC 65 . Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that salary does not remain the same. When a person is in a permanent job, there is always an enhancement due to one reason or the other. To lay down as a thumb rule that there will be no addition after 50 years will be an unacceptable concept. We are disposed to think, there should be an addition of 15% if the deceased is between the age of 50 to 60 years and there should be no addition thereafter. Similarly, in case of self-employed or person on fixed salary, the addition should be 10% between the age of 50 to 60 years. The aforesaid yardstick has been fixed so that there can be consistency in the approach by the tribunals and the courts.
Patna High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - J Kumar - Full Document

Shila Devi vs Raja Ram Dokania on 7 November, 2025

58. The controversy does not end here. The question still remains whether there should be no addition where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 thinks it appropriate not to add any amount and the same has been approved in Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, (2013) 9 SCC 65 . Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that salary does not remain the same. When a person is in a permanent job, there is always an enhancement due to one reason or the other. To lay down as a thumb rule that there will be no addition after 50 years will be an unacceptable concept. We are Patna High Court MA No.150 of 2020 dt.07-11-2025 19/25 disposed to think, there should be an addition of 15% if the deceased is between the age of 50 to 60 years and there should be no addition thereafter. Similarly, in case of self-employed or person on fixed salary, the addition should be 10% between the age of 50 to 60 years. The aforesaid yardstick has been fixed so that there can be consistency in the approach by the tribunals and the courts.
Patna High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - J Kumar - Full Document

Prem Vati W/O Late Shri Sat Pal Singh ... vs Satya Vir Singh S/O Shri Uttam Singh on 26 July, 2016

5. Against the above backdrop, by judgment dated 22.01.2016 passed in MAC Appeal No.956/2012 (Sunil Kumar vs. Pyar Mohd.), this Court has found it proper to follow the view taken earlier by a learned single judge in MAC Appeal No.189/2014 (HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Lalta Devi & Ors.) decided on 12.01.2015, presently taking the decision in Reshma Kumari (Supra) as the binding precedent, till such time the law on the subject of future prospects for those who are "self-employed" or engaged in gainful employment at a "fixed salary" is clarified by a larger bench of the Supreme Court.
Delhi District Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sahdeo Prasad @ Ravindra Kumar And Ors vs English Prasad And Ors on 18 November, 2025

58. The controversy does not end here. The question still remains whether there should be no addition where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 thinks it appropriate not to add any amount and the same has been approved in Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, (2013) 9 SCC 65 . Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that salary does not remain the same. When a person is in a permanent job, there is always an enhancement due to one reason or the other. To lay down as a thumb rule that there will be no addition after 50 years will be an unacceptable concept. We are disposed to think, there should be an addition of 15% if the deceased is between the age of 50 to 60 years and there should be no addition thereafter. Similarly, in case of self-employed or person on fixed salary, the addition should be 10% between the age of 50 to 60 years. The aforesaid yardstick has been fixed so that there can be consistency in the approach by the tribunals and the courts.
Patna High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - J Kumar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next