Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.39 seconds)
Joydev Malik vs National Insurance Company Limited And ... on 9 May, 2024 cites

Pratap Narain Singh Deo vs Srinivas Sabata And Anr on 4 December, 1975

iv) Pratap Narain Singh Deo versus Srinivas Sabata and Anr.1 3a. He further raised other issues that the learned Tribunal Judge wrongly assessed the income of the appellant as Rs. 3,000/- in place of Rs. 4,000/-. The learned Court also did not allow any future prospects or non-pecuniary damages. If the learned Tribunal would have considered compensation on these aforesaid heads of future prospects 40% of the actual income and non-pecuniary damages to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/= 1 1976 AIR 222, 1976 SCR (2) 872.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 944 - P N Shinghal - Full Document

Laxmi Devi & Others vs Mohammad Tabbar & Another on 25 March, 2008

6. Upon perusal of the judgment reported in Laxmi Devi & Others vs. Mohammad Tabbar & Another3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held even an unskilled labour can earn Rs. 100/- per day but in the present case, the accident was occurred in year 2007. So, income of claimant considered by the Learned Tribunal is perfectly correct to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- per month. This Court does not find any error in considering the notional income of the claimant at the time of accident.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 454 - V S Sirpurkar - Full Document

Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009

In view of observation made in Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and 3 2008 (2) T.A.C. 394 (SC) 9 Another4 and later a judgement passed by a Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court affirming the manner of selection of multiplier in National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others5 by indicating therein that the selection of multiplier as declared correctly as indicated in the paragraph in Sarla Verma's case as, inter alia, as follows: -
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 20141 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

National Insurance Company Ltd vs Pranay Sethi And Others on 22 June, 2022

In view of observation made in Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and 3 2008 (2) T.A.C. 394 (SC) 9 Another4 and later a judgement passed by a Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court affirming the manner of selection of multiplier in National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others5 by indicating therein that the selection of multiplier as declared correctly as indicated in the paragraph in Sarla Verma's case as, inter alia, as follows: -
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1946 - J R Dua - Full Document

Raj Kumar Singh & Anr vs Ajay Kumar Singh & Ors on 7 January, 2016

In Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Ors.6, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has given guideline for calculation of actual functional disability of the body and nor could it be assumed in result in corresponding of loss of earning capacity in future. The claim of the claimant was that at the time of accident, he was a helper-cum- driver of a truck but fails to prove the same by way of evidence either oral or documentary evidence. He even fails to produce driving license. Under the said facts, the learned Tribunal has assessed his disability as permanent and also assessed the total loss of earning capacity of 80% (Ext. 7). There is no need to any assistance or escort to the appellant/claimant and also 6 (2011) 1 SCC 343, (2011) (1) TAC 785.
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 176 - A K Trivedi - Full Document
1