Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.46 seconds)
Documents citing Sushma H.R. vs Deepak Kumar Jha on 15 September, 2022

United India Insurance Company Limited vs Yerrdoddi Rama Chandra Reddy on 18 March, 2024

20) The contention of the claimants without there being any Cross Objections or Cross Appeal is that the Tribunal erred in considering the income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/- per month, as such, this Court has to enhance the compensation. It is very difficult to accept such a contention. The learned counsel for the claimants would rely upon the decision in Sushama H.R.'s case (1 supra). It has nothing to do to enhance the compensation in an appeal filed by the insurance company. As this Court already pointed out on factual appreciation exercise made by the Tribunal is reasonable.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

V.Dharmavathi vs Mohd Jaffar on 7 June, 2023

9. The claimants got examined PW3, who is the Regional Manager of Quantum International Private Ltd. with which the deceased was doing business. The court below without any rational has taken Rs.2,00,000/- as the annual income of the deceased. The accident has happened in the year 2003 and for the year 2002-2003, the income of the deceased was Rs.5,30,431/-. The court below ought to have considered the said income and further, question of considering 50% of the income while computing the future prospects as per the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the insurance company in Sushma's case (stated supra) is not applicable to the facts of the case.
Telangana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - L Kanneganti - Full Document

The Manager vs J.Suresh

11. The learned counsel for the claimants relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushma H.R. V. Deepak Kumar Jha reported in 2023-ACJ-331 and contended that in a similar set of facts before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Rs.50,000/- per month was 7/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD).No.107 of 2018 & Cros.Obj (MD)No.14 of 2021 taken as income of the wife, who was doing Bakery business. However, on going through the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we find that ultimately loss of dependency has been arrived at taking into account only Rs.25,000/-, as the monthly income of the deceased and on the facts of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, future prospects was taken as 40%. We therefore do not find the facts of the case being applicable to the facts on hand.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Manager vs J.Suresh

11. The learned counsel for the claimants relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushma H.R. V. Deepak Kumar Jha reported in 2023-ACJ-331 and contended that in a similar set of facts before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Rs.50,000/- per month was taken as income of the wife, who was doing Bakery business. However, 7/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD).No.107 of 2018 & Cros.Obj (MD)No.14 of 2021 on going through the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we find that ultimately loss of dependency has been arrived at taking into account only Rs.25,000/-, as the monthly income of the deceased and on the facts of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, future prospects was taken as 40%. We therefore do not find the facts of the case being applicable to the facts on hand.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

D.M. (Legal) vs Pravati Sahoo &Ors on 8 May, 2025

4.2. It is also contended that the Tribunal while assessing the compensation, did not appreciate various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court i.e. Sushma H.R. and another vs. Deepak Kumar Jha and others reported in 2022 (4) T.A.C. 422 (S.C.), New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Yogesh Devi and others reported in 2012 (2) T.A.C. I (S.C.), State of Haryana and another vs. Jasbir Kaur and others, reported in 2003 (3) T.A.C. 569 (S.C.), which are applicable to the facts of the present case.
Orissa High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - B P Satapathy - Full Document

Smt. Kavita vs Mukram Khan on 12 February, 2026

Ltd. 2022 (4) TAC Page 388 S.C. , para 25 of Jakir Hussain vs. Dinesh & Ors. 2015 ACJ Page 961 M.P. , paras 19 to 21 of Sharmila Singh vs. Rabin Ghosh & Anr. 2010 ACJ Page 1428, para 6 & 7 of Sushma H.R. & Anr. vs. Deepak Kumar Jha & Ors. 2023 ACJ Page 331 S.C. He further submits that one of his sons is a mentally challenged and he was also bearing expenses for his treatment. He further submits that all the six survivors should have been awarded consortium @ Rs.40,000/- each. On these premises, learned counsel prays for enhancement of the award amount.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next