Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.46 seconds)Ranjana Prakash And Ors vs The Divisional Manager And Anr on 29 July, 2011
14. As far as amount awarded by learned Tribunal below on
account of attendant charges, medical expenses and taxi bills i.e.
`10,000/-, `32958 and `10,500/- is concerned, there appears to be
no illegality because same is totally based upon the documentary
evidence adduced on record by the claimant and as such, need not
to be re-assessed. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ranjana Prakash case
(supra) has held that amount of compensation can be enhanced even
in the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company, if court comes to
the conclusion that learned Tribunal below has not awarded just and
fair compensation. It would be profitable to reproduce following para
of the judgment herein:-
Govind Yadav vs The New India Insurance Co.Ltd on 1 November, 2011
In this regard reliance is placed upon the
judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Govind Yadav versus
New India Assurance Company Limited,2012(1) ACJ 28, wherein it has
been held as under:-
Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009
The application of multiplier of 17 by the Tribunal, which
was approved by the High Court, will have to be treated
as erroneous in view of the judgment in Sarla Verma V.
Delhi Transport Corporation 2009 ACJ 1298(SC). In para
21 of that judgment, the court has indicated that if the
age of the victim of an accident is 24 years, then the
r appropriate multiplier would be 18. By applying that
multiplier, we hold that the compensation payable to
the appellant in lieu of the loss of earnings would be
Rs.4,53,600/-".
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd vs Shalu Sharma on 2 February, 2018
Jain and others, (2015)4 Supreme Court cases 433, contended that
the claimant is entitled to interest, as awarded by the learned
Tribunal from the date of filing of the petition not from the passing of
the award. Mr. Sharma, also placed reliance upon the judgment
passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Reliance General Insurance
Company Limited versus Shalu Sharma and others (2018)2 Supreme
Court Cases 753 and contended that the claimant is entitled to
interest at the rate of 9% qua the compensation awarded to him on
account of future loss of income from the date of filing petition.
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi on 31 October, 2017
"4. The judgment of a Constitution Bench of this Court in
National Insurance Com. Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi ( 2017)16 SCC
680, settles the issue. The deceased was self-employed.
Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 171 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
V. Mekala vs M. Malathi & Anr on 25 April, 2014
9. Mr. Sharma, while placing reliance upon the judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in V.Mekala versus M. Malathi and
another, (2014)11 Supreme Court Cases 178, contended that learned
.