Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 740 (1.51 seconds)
Documents citing Gobald Motor Service Ltd. & Another vs R. M. K. Veluswami & Others on 14 April, 1961

Nazeema And Ors. vs George Kuriakose And Ors. on 26 July, 1991

The essential conideration was whether these amounts were received by "reason of death" of the deceased, a principle laid down in Gobald Motor Service Limited (AIR 1962 SC 1) (supra) and earlier English cases. "By reason of death" means "in consequence of death." These expressions manifest the causal connection between the death and the receipt of the advantage or benefit. This cause and effect relation does not admit of cases where the dependents receive amounts which are merely "payable at the death" of the deceasd. In every case the question is : Did the dependent receive the benefit "by reason of, "in consequence of" or "by" the death? The question is not whether the dependent received any benefit "at" the death or whether the benefit was "payable at the death"? In our opinion these tests raise a further question --Could the dependents have received the benefit during the lifetime of the deceased? Or can it be said that but for the death they would not have received the share of Mohammed Basheer?
Kerala High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Rajasthan State Road Transport ... vs Smt. Kistoori Devi And Ors. on 17 October, 1985

"Under Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 the Tribunal is required to fix such compensation which appears to it to be just. The power given to the tribunal in the matter of fixing compensation under that provision is wide. Even if we assume (we do not propose to decide that question in this case) that compensation under that provision has to be fixed on the same basis as is required to be done under Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 (Act 13 of 1855), the pecuniary loss to the aggrieved party would depend upon data which cannot be ascertained accurately but must necessarily be an estimate or even partly a conjecture. The general principle is that the pecuniary loss can be ascertained only by balancing on the one hand the loss to the claimants of the future pecuniary benefit and on the other any pecuniary advantage which from whatever sources come to them by reason of the death, that is, the balance of loss and gain to a dependant by the death must be ascertained -- See Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v. R. M. K. Veluswami, (1962) 1 SCR 929 = AIR 1962 SC 1."
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 41 - Cited by 16 - N M Kasliwal - Full Document

Prabhavati Sharma And Ors. vs Brijmohan Parihar And Ors. on 25 January, 1990

It has also been held by this court, albeit on the basis of the holding in Gobald Motor Service (supra), that onus lies on the defendant to establish that any benefit derived by the claimants was deductible on account of the same accruing to them "by reason of death" of the deceased. As such, the case of the respondents for sustaining deduction in regard to the payment against "family benefit fund" must also fail for the same reason that the nature and incident of that payment has not been established as in the case of "family pension". Unless those are proved as benefits accruing to the claimants in the form of advantage resulting from the death, payments received on those heads by them are not deductible.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 7 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Deputy General Manager And Divisional ... vs H. Saroiarnma And Ors. on 2 January, 1981

In view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Gobald Motor Service Case unless the law is changed, as is done in England in 1959, making a specific provision for the exclusion of collateral benefits received by the dependants consequent upon the death, the collateral benefit, such as family pension, has to be taken into account and deduction has to be given for the amount so received in the amount of compensation awarded.
Karnataka High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Sushila Devi And Ors. vs Ibrahim And Anr. on 4 December, 1973

There are three decisions in which the Supreme Court had occasion to deal with a claim under the Fatal Accidents Act and to interpret Sections 1A and 2. The principles governing the assessment of damages under Sections 1A and 2 are, therefore, well settled. See, Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v. R.N.K. Veluswami AIR 1962 SC 1; Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti, AIR 1966 SC 1750 and C. K. Subramonia Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair, AIR 1970 SC 376. The damages are to be based on the reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit or benefits reducible to money value. In assessing the damages all circumstances which may be legitimately pleaded in diminution of the damages must be considered. The actual pecuniary loss of each individual entitled to sue can only be ascertained by balancing on the one hand, the loss to him of the future pecuniary benefit, and, on the other, any pecuniary advantage which from whatever source comes to him, by reason of the death."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 45 - A P Sen - Full Document

Immamudin And Ors. vs Mst. Khatoon And Ors. on 23 July, 1976

25. There are three decisions in which the Supreme Court had occasion to deal with a claim under the Fatal Accidents Act and to interpret Sections 1A and 2. The principles governing the assessment of damages under Sections 1A and 2 are, therefore, well settled. See. Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v. R. N. K. Veluswami, AIR 1962 SC 1, Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Subhagwanti, AIR 1966 SC 1750 and C. K. Subramrnia Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair, AIR 1970 SC 376. The damages are to be based on the reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit or benefits reducible to money value. In assessing the damages all circumstances which may be legitimately pleaded in diminution of the damages must be considered. The actual pecuniary loss of each individual entitled to sue can only be ascertained by balancing on the one hand, the loss to him of the future pecuniary benefit, and, on the other, any pecuniary advantage which from whatever source comes to him, by reason of the death.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - A P Sen - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next