Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (1.11 seconds)
Nanjibhai Patel And Anr. vs Vishnu Prasad Sharma on 26 September, 1989 cites

Sardar Ishwar Singh, Truck Owner And ... vs Himachal Puri And Ors. on 18 September, 1989

In Shamsher Khan v. M.P. Electricity Board 1988 ACJ 394 (MP) and the recent decision of this court in Sardar Ishwar Singh v. Himachal Puri 1990 ACJ 965 (MP), clarify this legal belief of this court beyond doubt. Under the circumstances, compensation for an accidental death under Section 110-B of the Act could not be less than Rs. 15,000/-. Since the awarded amount of compensation is less than the minimum, it is not possible to sustain the impugned award. What should then be the just compensation' under Section 110-B of the Act? That the deceased was the only bread-earner of the family which consisted of his wife and parents is apparent. Since the widow has remarried, the appellants have been rendered destitute. That the deceased was of 24 years of age indicates that he would have provided shelter to the parents during their lifetime which on a reasonable basis is estimated to be 65 years. True, the appellants could not be expected to survive for 65 years more and yet there is no reason why they should be expected to survive for 10 years more only. Considering the fact that the appellants are aged 47 and 45 years, the learned Tribunal seems to be thinking that they would survive only till the age of 57 and 55. This cannot be accepted as justified. It is well-known that life expectancy in India has increased considerably and is now about 60 years on the average. For this reason this court and other courts have taken the normal expectancy of life to be between 70 to 75 years.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 19 - Full Document

Lanka Saramma vs Rajendra Singh And Ors. on 22 February, 1983

This was also the view of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Lanka Sarmma v. Rajendra Singh 1984 ACJ 198 (AP). Under the circumstances, this court is not able to agree with the learned Tribunal that the appellants would live only for another 10 years and would have got help from the deceased only for that period. Considering the age of the deceased, it is the considered opinion of this court that the appellants would have got his support at least for a period of 20 years, if not more.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 8 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi & Ors vs Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co. (P) Ltd. & ... on 25 March, 1977

5. The next and important question is about the extent of liability of the insurance company. Jugal Kishore's case 1988 ACJ 270 (SC), agrees with the court's earlier decision in Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co. 1977 ACJ 343 (SC) and holds that "the insurer can always take policies covering risks which are not covered by the requirements of Section 95 of the Act." (Para 5). The court has, therefore, observed: "Even though it is not permissible to use a vehicle unless it is covered at least under an 'Act only' policy, it is not obligatory for the owner of a vehicle to get it comprehensively insured. In case, however, it is got comprehensively insured, a higher premium than for an 'Act only' policy is payable depending on the estimated value of the vehicle. Such insurance entitles the owner to claim reimbursement of the entire amount of loss or damage suffered up to the estimated value of the vehicle calculated according to the rules and regulations framed in this behalf." In the context of these legal principles, the Supreme Court examined the policy and held that, "it is only the 'vehicle' which was comprehensively insured, the insured's estimate of value including accessories (I.E.V.) thereof having been shown as Rs. 40,000/-". The court, therefore, held that the policy did not cover any risk other than the one provided under Section 95 (2) (b) of the Act and hence its liability was limited to Rs. 20,000/- only. It is interesting to note that in spite of the aforesaid decision, the court permitted the claimants to retain the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Be that as it may, this judgment does not lay down any new law. It only re-emphasises the view that the parties can, by their agreement, cover a higher risk than provided in Section 95 (2) of the Act and that if the vehicle was insured for comprehensive risk the liability of the insurance company would exceed the ceiling fixed by the aforesaid provision. In view of this law, the facts of the case may be examined.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 516 - P S Kailasam - Full Document

National Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi vs Jugal Kishore & Others on 9 February, 1988

In Jugal Kishore's case (supra), the liability under Section II-I (i) was limited to such amount as is necessary to meet the requirements of the Act, which is not the present case. If the submission of the learned Counsel for the insurance company that typed Rs. 50,000/-should be read in relation to liability under Section II-I (ii) is to be accepted, it would make the liability under Section II-I (i) unlimited in the absence of any limitation about it in this clause. In view of the wordings of Section II-I (ii) and the 'comprehensive risk' cover by the policy, the present award of Rs. 32,400/- would be covered by the policy in any case and the respondent insurance company would be liable to pay the same. In this view of the matter, it is not possible to agree to the submission that the liability of the insurance company was limited to statutory limit. The fact that the insurance company has already accepted the award making it liable for an amount of Rs. 12,000/-is itself indicative of the fact that the question of limits of its liability was not canvassed before the Tribunal. Be that as it may, since it was a question of law and concerns the increased liability being imported by this court, it deserved serious thought and consideration.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 414 - N D Ojha - Full Document
1   2 Next