Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (1.49 seconds)
Aarti Pathania (Wife Of Deceased), Fir ... vs Jagmohan on 31 October, 2023 cites

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

34. Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (supra) has held that future prospects have to be considered for calculating the loss of income. After adding future prospects, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.29,422/- (21,016/- + 21,016/- x 40/100). The deceased was married. Therefore, one-third is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1946 - J R Dua - Full Document

City Water Supplier vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. on 12 February, 2014

In regard to the objection raised by the insurance company regarding the violation of the permit, as the offending vehicle was being plied in Delhi despite possessing a permit in respect of contract carriage only for Haryana, reference can be made to the observations made by Hon'ble High Court in City Water Supplier vs. The New India Assurance Company Limited MAC Appeal 708/2012 as well as ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited vs. Bijender Singh, 2012 (130) DRJ 545 wherein the Hon'ble High Court has also relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in National MACT No. 213/2023 13/26 Arti Pathania & Ors. vs. Jagmohan & Ors.
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 13 - S K Kait - Full Document

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd vs Bijender Singh & Ors on 21 May, 2012

In regard to the objection raised by the insurance company regarding the violation of the permit, as the offending vehicle was being plied in Delhi despite possessing a permit in respect of contract carriage only for Haryana, reference can be made to the observations made by Hon'ble High Court in City Water Supplier vs. The New India Assurance Company Limited MAC Appeal 708/2012 as well as ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited vs. Bijender Singh, 2012 (130) DRJ 545 wherein the Hon'ble High Court has also relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in National MACT No. 213/2023 13/26 Arti Pathania & Ors. vs. Jagmohan & Ors.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - G P Mittal - Full Document

Oriental Insurance Co. vs Sardar Swarn Singh (Owner Of Vehicle) on 4 September, 2014

27. In the present case also, the permit which has been produced on record shows that it was valid for contract carriage on the date of accident though, its region covered is Haryana only. The driving of the vehicle in Delhi area seems to be route violation by the driver of the vehicle for which he has been challaned. Same however, can not be considered as a fundamental violation as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swarn Singh's case which could have contributed to the cause of accident. In view of the same, the respondent no. 3/ insurance company is liable to pay the compensation.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 46 - Full Document

Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram on 18 September, 2018

because of the injuries suffered by him in the accident which occurred due to the negligence of respondent no.1. Hence, the LRs of deceased are entitled for compensation for the financial loss suffered by them on account of the death of Neeraj Kumar. The petitioners, being the legal representatives of the deceased, shall be entitled for the following reliefs as per the law discussed in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. decided in Special Leave Petition Civil no. 25590 of 2014 and Megma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130 wherein the extent of the claim under different heads was discussed in detail and it was held that following amounts shall be considered as just and reasonable award under the heads i.e., Loss of Consortium, Funeral expenses and loss of Estate. Funeral expenses and loss of estate has been limited to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- each subject to enhancement of Rs. 10% of every three year since the judgment in the above said judgment (Supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 4992 - I Malhotra - Full Document

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Sonmati And Ors. on 23 September, 2004

31. So far so, the loss of consortium is concerned, it has been decided by the Apex Court on 07.09.2020 in Civil Appeal No. 3093/2020 arising out of SLP (C) No. 23478/2019 in case titled as The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Somwati and Ors. that the claimants are entitled for Loss of Consortium whether it is wife or son or daughter. Apex court had also referred to The Black's Law dictionary in this respect "word consortium" has been defined in 10th Edition also simultaneously notices the filial consortium, parental consortium and spousal consortium."
Delhi High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 72 - R S Sodhi - Full Document

National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi on 31 October, 2017

Further, in the judgment titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra) it has been concluded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in determination of the multiplicand the deduction for personal and living expenses the Tribunals shall be guided by the law as laid in Sarla Verma's case. Admittedly, the deceased Neeraj Kumar was married, who left behind his legal heirs i.e. wife, son, mother and father. As per the aadhar Card, the deceased was 34 years of age at the time of accident therefore, the applicable multiplier would be '16'.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 9815 - D Misra - Full Document

Smt. Kaushnuma Begum And Ors vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And Ors on 3 January, 2001

21. Furthermore, it is a settled legal position that while deciding a petition u/s 166 of the M V Act, the Claims Tribunal has to decide negligence on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. Reference in this regard is made to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kaushnumma Begum and Others v/s New India Assurance Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 421 SC, wherein it was held that the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of the driver of motor vehicle involved in the accident is of secondary importance and mere use or involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injuries or death to a human being or damage to property would make the petition maintainable u/s 166 & 140 of the M V Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 2652 - Full Document
1   2 Next