Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.35 seconds)
Narender Singh vs . Darshan Singh & Ors. on 21 March, 2023 cites

The New India Assurance Company Limited vs Bimal Kumar Shah & Anr on 20 July, 2018

"27. It must, however, be noted that there is a cleavage of judicial opinion on the point as to whether the amount of DAR No. 291/15 Narinder Singh Vs. Darshan Singh & Ors. Page 9 of 32 reimbursement received under a mediclaim policy, be deducted from the compensation payable under the Act, in the judgments of various High Courts. A Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Bimal Kumar Shah & Anr.6 elaborately considered the judgments which hold the view that such amount is required to be deducted and those which record a contrary view and, thereafter, by placing reliance upon the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Helen C. Rebello (Supra), especially paragraph Nos.35 to 37, extracted above, came to the conclusion that the reimbursement of medical expenses under a contract of insurance is not deductible. While arriving at the aforesaid conclusion, the Calcutta High Court observed as under :-
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 9 - Cited by 15 - P P Banerjee - Full Document

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

28. To apply the multiplier, it is necessary to ascertain the DAR No. 291/15 Narinder Singh Vs. Darshan Singh & Ors. Page 17 of 32 age of the petitioner. However, the petitioner has not placed on record any document in order to prove his age. Perusal of record reveals that age of petitioner is recorded as 54 years, 6 months and 3 days in the discharge summary issued by BLK Hospital. Further, in the written submissions filed on behalf of Insurance Company, the age of petitioner is mentioned as 54 years. Hence, it is clear from the above that the age of the petitioner on the date of accident was around 54 years. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been upheld by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014 dated 31.10.2017, the multiplier of '11' is applicable for calculating the loss of future earnings of the petitioner arising out of above disability.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1946 - J R Dua - Full Document

Mr. R.D. Hattangadi vs M/S Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 6 January, 1995

"4. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (`Act' for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376, R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467).
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 1698 - N P Singh - Full Document

Mangla Ram vs The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd on 6 April, 2018

10. Moreover, it has not been disputed that respondent No.1 has been charge-sheeted in the aforesaid FIR for offences punishable under Sections 279/338 IPC for rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 has observed that filing of charge sheet against the driver prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It has been further observed that even when the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal case, the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 736 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document

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

29. Further, the petitioner is also held entitled to 10% future prospects in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.(Supra) as he was between the age of 51 to 60 years at the time of accident and self employed. Thus, the loss of future earnings caused to the petitioner due to his permanent disability comes to Rs.36,30,294/- (Rs. 54,829/- X 12 X 45.6/100 X 11 X 110/100).
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 9815 - D Misra - Full Document
1   2 3 Next