Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.42 seconds)
A.Gopinathan vs Afzal Basha on 9 March, 2020 cites

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

In Arun Kumar Agrawal, the Apex Court, after noticing some of the precedents in which guiding principles have been laid down for determination of the compensation payable to the victims of motor accident or their legal representatives, held that though, Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act does not, in terms apply to the cases in which claim for compensation is filed under Section 166 of the Act, in the absence of any other definite criteria for determination of compensation payable to the dependents of a non-earning housewife/mother, it would be reasonable to rely upon the criteria specified in Clause (6) of the Second Schedule and then apply appropriate multiplier keeping in view the decisions in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas [(1994) 2 SCC 176]; U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra [(1996) 4 SCC 362]; Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121]; and also take guidance from the decision in Lata Wadha v. State of Bihar [(2001) 8 SCC 197].
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 20141 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

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

14. Now coming to the last aspect, i.e., the conventional heads, in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680], it has been standardised at Rs.15,000 for loss of estate; Rs.40,000 towards loss of consortium (in the present case loss of love and affection) and Rs.15,000 towards funeral expenses. The total amount, MACA No. 380 of 2010 -34- thus, would be Rs.70,000, which as per the said judgment is capable of being enhanced @ 10 percent in the span of every three years. However, we are still within the window of three years." "underline supplied"
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 9815 - D Misra - Full Document

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation ... vs Trilok Chandra & Others on 7 May, 1996

In Arun Kumar Agrawal, the Apex Court, after noticing some of the precedents in which guiding principles have been laid down for determination of the compensation payable to the victims of motor accident or their legal representatives, held that though, Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act does not, in terms apply to the cases in which claim for compensation is filed under Section 166 of the Act, in the absence of any other definite criteria for determination of compensation payable to the dependents of a non-earning housewife/mother, it would be reasonable to rely upon the criteria specified in Clause (6) of the Second Schedule and then apply appropriate multiplier keeping in view the decisions in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas [(1994) 2 SCC 176]; U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra [(1996) 4 SCC 362]; Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121]; and also take guidance from the decision in Lata Wadha v. State of Bihar [(2001) 8 SCC 197].
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 1415 - Full Document

General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C vs Susamma Thomas on 6 January, 1993

In Arun Kumar Agrawal, the Apex Court, after noticing some of the precedents in which guiding principles have been laid down for determination of the compensation payable to the victims of motor accident or their legal representatives, held that though, Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act does not, in terms apply to the cases in which claim for compensation is filed under Section 166 of the Act, in the absence of any other definite criteria for determination of compensation payable to the dependents of a non-earning housewife/mother, it would be reasonable to rely upon the criteria specified in Clause (6) of the Second Schedule and then apply appropriate multiplier keeping in view the decisions in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas [(1994) 2 SCC 176]; U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra [(1996) 4 SCC 362]; Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121]; and also take guidance from the decision in Lata Wadha v. State of Bihar [(2001) 8 SCC 197].
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 4294 - G N Ray - Full Document

Lata Wadhwa & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 16 August, 2001

In Arun Kumar Agrawal, the Apex Court, after noticing some of the precedents in which guiding principles have been laid down for determination of the compensation payable to the victims of motor accident or their legal representatives, held that though, Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act does not, in terms apply to the cases in which claim for compensation is filed under Section 166 of the Act, in the absence of any other definite criteria for determination of compensation payable to the dependents of a non-earning housewife/mother, it would be reasonable to rely upon the criteria specified in Clause (6) of the Second Schedule and then apply appropriate multiplier keeping in view the decisions in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas [(1994) 2 SCC 176]; U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra [(1996) 4 SCC 362]; Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121]; and also take guidance from the decision in Lata Wadha v. State of Bihar [(2001) 8 SCC 197].
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 1298 - Full Document

Indian Bank vs Abs Marine Products Pvt. Ltd on 18 April, 2006

In State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih [(2014) 8 SCC 883] a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court affirmed the view taken in ABS Marine Products' case (supra) holding that, the directions issued under Article 142 do not constitute a binding precedent unlike Article 141 of the Constitution of India. They are direction issued to do proper justice and exercise of such power, MACA No. 380 of 2010 -41- cannot be considered as law laid down by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court held further that, the directions of the Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, while moulding the relief, that relax the application of law or exempt the case in hand from the rigour of the law in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances do not comprise the ratio decidendi and therefore lose its basic premise of making it a binding precedent. Paras.11 to 13 of the judgment read thus;
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 126 - Full Document

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Mohd. Nasir & Anr on 12 May, 2009

15.1. In Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi, the Apex Court noticed that, as against the award passed by the Tribunal awarding a total compensation of Rs.2,24,000/-, the claimants have not filed any appeal. Therefore, the Apex Court considered the question as to whether the income of the deceased could be increased and compensation could be enhanced. The Apex Court held that, in terms of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Courts/ Tribunals are to pass awards determining the amount of compensation as to be fair and reasonable and accepted by the legal standards. The power of the Courts in awarding reasonable compensation was emphasised in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh [(2003) 2 SCC 274], Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mohd. Nasir [(2009) 6 SCC 280] and Ningamma v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. [(2009) 13 SCC 710]. As against the award passed by the Tribunal even though the claimants have not filed any appeal, as it is obligatory on the part of Courts/Tribunals to award just and reasonable compensation, MACA No. 380 of 2010 -14- the Apex Court deem it appropriate to increase the compensation. In order to award just and reasonable compensation, the monthly income of the deceased was taken as Rs.3,000/-. After deducting 1/3rd towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased and adopting the multiplier of 18, the Apex Court calculated loss of dependency at Rs.4,32,000/-.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 349 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Ningamma & Anr vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd on 13 May, 2009

15.1. In Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi, the Apex Court noticed that, as against the award passed by the Tribunal awarding a total compensation of Rs.2,24,000/-, the claimants have not filed any appeal. Therefore, the Apex Court considered the question as to whether the income of the deceased could be increased and compensation could be enhanced. The Apex Court held that, in terms of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Courts/ Tribunals are to pass awards determining the amount of compensation as to be fair and reasonable and accepted by the legal standards. The power of the Courts in awarding reasonable compensation was emphasised in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh [(2003) 2 SCC 274], Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mohd. Nasir [(2009) 6 SCC 280] and Ningamma v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. [(2009) 13 SCC 710]. As against the award passed by the Tribunal even though the claimants have not filed any appeal, as it is obligatory on the part of Courts/Tribunals to award just and reasonable compensation, MACA No. 380 of 2010 -14- the Apex Court deem it appropriate to increase the compensation. In order to award just and reasonable compensation, the monthly income of the deceased was taken as Rs.3,000/-. After deducting 1/3rd towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased and adopting the multiplier of 18, the Apex Court calculated loss of dependency at Rs.4,32,000/-.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 814 - M Sharma - Full Document

Reshma Kumari & Ors vs Madan Mohan & Anr on 2 April, 2013

17. In Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680], a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that, the determination of 'just compensation' 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 MACA No. 380 of 2010 -16- relating to multiplier has been clearly stated in Sarla Verma [(2009) 6 SCC 121] and it has been approved in Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan [(2013) 9 SCC 65]. 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. In such an adjudication, the duty of the Tribunal and the Courts is difficult and hence, an endeavour has been made by this Court for standardization which in its ambit includes addition of future prospects on the proven income at present. As far as future prospects are concerned, there has been standardization keeping in view the principle of certainty, stability and consistency. In Pranay Sethi the Apex Court approved the principle of 'standardisation' so that a specific and certain multiplicand is determined for applying the multiplier on the basis of age.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 2700 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Munna Lal Jain & Anr vs Vipin Kumar Sharma & Ors on 15 May, 2015

In Munna Lal Jain v. Vipin Kumar Sharma [(2015) 6 SCC 347] another Three-Judge Bench followed the principle stated in Rajesh. In Pranay Sethi, after expressing the opinion that the dicta laid down in Reshma Kumari being earlier in point of time would be a binding precedent and not the decision in Rajesh, the Constitution Bench observed that, in Munna Lal Jain, the Three-Judge Bench should have been guided by the principle stated in Reshma Kumari which has concurred with the view expressed in Sarla Devi or in case of disagreement, it should have been well advised to refer the case to a Larger Bench.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 1196 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next