Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.28 seconds)
Universal Sompo General Insurance ... vs Smt Renu Devi And Ors on 13 December, 2024 cites

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Etc. Etc vs Patrica Jean Mahajan And Ors. Etc. Etc on 8 July, 2002

7. In the light of the aforesaid ratio, each and every amount received by the claimants on account of death of the deceased, is not deductible from the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1988 Act'). For the amount to be deductible, the same must have some connection with the amount payable under the 1988 Act. Section 167 of the 1988 Act provided that notwithstanding anything contained under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1923 Act'), the person entitled to claim compensation may claim compensation either under the 1988 Act or under the 1923 Act but not under both. Thus, wherever the policy is on account of premium payable by the employer, the same may fall within the ambit of Workman's Compensation Act, 1923 and attract bar under Section 167 of the 1988 Act. However, in the present case, the amount received by the claimants from HDFC Bank, owing to insurance linked to the salary account, was not payable on account of death in the motor-vehicular accident but was payable in the event of accidental death related to the 18 of 19 ::: Downloaded on - 21-12-2024 17:03:04 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:166667 FAO-5844-2024 (O&M) 19 nature of duty that the police personnels are required to undertake. Thus, in view of the principle laid down by Apex Court in Mrs. Helen C. Rebello's case (supra), reiterated in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Patricia Jean Mahajan' (supra) and further approved in Shashi Sharma's case (supra), the plea raised by Mr. Jain, cannot be accepted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 446 - B Kumar - Full Document

Mrs. Helen C. Rebello & Ors vs Maharashtra State Road Transport ... on 18 September, 1998

16. The principle discernable from the exposition in Helen C. Rebello's case (supra) is that if the amount "would be due to the dependants of the deceased even otherwise", the same shall not be deductible from the compensation amount payable under the Act of 1988. At the same time, it must be borne in mind that loss of income is a significant head under which compensation is claimed in terms of the Act of 1988. The component of quantum of "loss of income", inter alia, can be "pay and wages" which otherwise would have been earned by the deceased employee if he had survived the injury caused to him due to motor accident. If the dependents of the deceased employee, however, were to be compensated by the employer in that behalf, as is predicated by the Rules of 2006 - to grant compassionate assistance by way of ex-gratia financial assistance on compassionate grounds to the dependents of the deceased Government employee who dies in harness, it is 12 of 19 ::: Downloaded on - 21-12-2024 17:03:04 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:166667 FAO-5844-2024 (O&M) 13 unfathomable that the dependents can still be permitted to claim the same amount as a possible or likely loss of income to be suffered by them to maintain a claim for compensation under the Act of 1988.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 133 - Full Document
1