Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.38 seconds)Gobald Motor Service Ltd. & Another vs R. M. K. Veluswami & Others on 14 April, 1961
10. Sri.S.K.Kayakmath, learned counsel
makes reference to paragraphs 5 and 12 of the
judgment in the case of U.P.STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND OTHERS VS.
TRILOK CHANDRA AND OTHERS 1, on the topic of
compensation for causing death by negligent
driving, whence learned Judges of the Apex Court,
made reference to GOBALD MOTOR SERVICES
LIMITED AND ANOTHER vs. R.M.K. VELUSWAMI
AND OTHERS 2, in which a reference was made to
1
(1996) 4 SCC 362
2
(1962) 1 SCR 929
:9:
the House of Lords decision in DAVIES vs. POWELL
DUFFRYN ASSOCIATED COLLIERIES LIMITED 3, as
also the decision of the Apex Court in GENERAL
MANAGER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT,
TRIVANDRUM Vs. SUSAMMA THOMAS 4, relating to
multiplier method for assessing the compensation.
In the facts and circumstances of this case, the
said judgments do not come to the aid of the
appellant in support of the submission of hiving off
`6,000/- from the monthly income of the
deceased.
General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C vs Susamma Thomas on 6 January, 1993
10. Sri.S.K.Kayakmath, learned counsel
makes reference to paragraphs 5 and 12 of the
judgment in the case of U.P.STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND OTHERS VS.
TRILOK CHANDRA AND OTHERS 1, on the topic of
compensation for causing death by negligent
driving, whence learned Judges of the Apex Court,
made reference to GOBALD MOTOR SERVICES
LIMITED AND ANOTHER vs. R.M.K. VELUSWAMI
AND OTHERS 2, in which a reference was made to
1
(1996) 4 SCC 362
2
(1962) 1 SCR 929
:9:
the House of Lords decision in DAVIES vs. POWELL
DUFFRYN ASSOCIATED COLLIERIES LIMITED 3, as
also the decision of the Apex Court in GENERAL
MANAGER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT,
TRIVANDRUM Vs. SUSAMMA THOMAS 4, relating to
multiplier method for assessing the compensation.
In the facts and circumstances of this case, the
said judgments do not come to the aid of the
appellant in support of the submission of hiving off
`6,000/- from the monthly income of the
deceased.
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation ... vs Trilok Chandra & Others on 7 May, 1996
10. Sri.S.K.Kayakmath, learned counsel
makes reference to paragraphs 5 and 12 of the
judgment in the case of U.P.STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND OTHERS VS.
TRILOK CHANDRA AND OTHERS 1, on the topic of
compensation for causing death by negligent
driving, whence learned Judges of the Apex Court,
made reference to GOBALD MOTOR SERVICES
LIMITED AND ANOTHER vs. R.M.K. VELUSWAMI
AND OTHERS 2, in which a reference was made to
1
(1996) 4 SCC 362
2
(1962) 1 SCR 929
:9:
the House of Lords decision in DAVIES vs. POWELL
DUFFRYN ASSOCIATED COLLIERIES LIMITED 3, as
also the decision of the Apex Court in GENERAL
MANAGER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT,
TRIVANDRUM Vs. SUSAMMA THOMAS 4, relating to
multiplier method for assessing the compensation.
In the facts and circumstances of this case, the
said judgments do not come to the aid of the
appellant in support of the submission of hiving off
`6,000/- from the monthly income of the
deceased.
Section 161 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Reshma Kumari & Ors vs Madan Mohan & Anr on 2 April, 2013
In RESHMA KUMARI AND OTHERS vs.
MADAN MOHAN AND ANOTHER 5, over which
reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the
appellant, the three Judges Bench of the Apex
Court at paragraph No.40 concluded that in cases
where the age of the deceased is 15 years and
above, the multiplier to be selected is to be in
accordance with column (4) of the table prepared
3
1942 Ac 601
4
AIR 1994 SC 1631
5
( 2013 ) 9 SC 65
: 10 :
in SARLA VERMA's case; while in case of deceased
upto 15 years, irrespective of Section 166 or
Section 163A of the MV Act, multiplier of '15' and
the assessment as pointed out in column (6) of
the table in SARLA VERMA's case should be
followed, in addition to other columns; it was
specifically pointed out to making addition to
income for future prospects, as set out in
paragraph No.24 of SARLA VERMA's case and that
deduction for personal and living expenses,
standards prescribed in paragraphs Nos.30, 31 and
32 of SARLA VERMA, however, subject to the
observations made in paragraph No.38, was to be
followed.
1