K.R.Madhusudan & Ors vs Administrative Officer & Anr on 18 February, 2011
In K.R. Madhusudhan and others vs.
Administrative Officer and another, (2011) 4 SCC
689 this Court held as follows:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.91 seconds)Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009
34. We, therefore, hold that in absence of any
specific reason and evidence on record the
19
Tribunal or the Court should not apply split
multiplier in routine course and should apply
multiplier as per decision of this Court in the case
of Sarla Verma (supra) as affirmed in the case of
Reshma Kumari, 2013 ACJ 1253 (SC)."
Union Of India And Others vs K.S. Lakshmi Kumar And Others on 21 June, 2000
20. It is the duty of the Court to arrive at a just
compensation in every case. While calculating the loss of
dependency, it is needless to say that the net salary
should be considered for the period of remaining service of
the employee and post retirement there must be 50%
reduction in the monthly salary. The above principle of
applying split multiplier has now gained recognition
through various judicial pronouncements right from the
case of Union and others v. K. S. Lakshmi Kumar and
17
others reported in ILR 2000 KAR 3809 till up to
Puttamma's case supra.
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Pranay Sethi Son Of Late Prashant Sethi ... on 20 April, 2011
35. It is pertinent to note that the Tribunal did not
award any amount towards filial and parental consortium
as per the legal principles enunciated in the case of
Magma General Insurance Company supra. Therefore,
instead of awarding compensation towards filial and
parental consortium, we deem it proper to maintain the
amount of Rs.2,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal on
conventional heads.
The Factories Act, 1948
Puttamma W/O Lt Ramadas vs K L Narayana Reddy S/O Lt Lakshmaiah ... on 10 March, 2010
1