Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.47 seconds)
Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. ... vs Kanchan Jatav on 17 July, 2025 cites

Manjuri Bera vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. And Anr on 30 March, 2007

14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Birender (surpa) has held that the legal representative has a right to apply for compensation and it is the bounden duty of the tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the legal representative concerned was fully dependent on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manjuri Bera (supra), while adverting to the provision of Section 40 has observed that even if there is no loss of dependency, the claimant, if he was a legal representative, will be entitled to compensation. The compensation constitutes part of estate of the deceased. The legal representative of the deceased would inherit the estate.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 369 - A Pasayat - Full Document

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

7. The appellant has challenged the impugned award mainly on the ground that the claimants are not the dependents of the deceased. It is Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA SEN Signing time: 14-08-2025 18:11:38 3 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:32387 further argued that the compensation of award by the tribunal is on higher side in absence of any cogent evidence and material. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that there is difference between legal representative and claimants to claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1988') It is further contended that though in the provisions of Section 166, the word/phrase 'legal representative' has been used but that is only to file application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 but not to get compensation, unless the applicants are dependent on the deceased. Further it is submitted that dependency is paramount consideration for granting compensation. It is also contended that in celebrated judgments of the Hon'ble Apex court in the cases of Smt. Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 the factor of dependency is the sole basis for assessment and calculation of compensation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 9815 - D Misra - Full Document

Kirti vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited on 5 January, 2021

21. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kirti vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited AIR 2021 SC 353 has held that in absence of proof of income, Government guideline for the unskilled labour is treated to be sole criterion to assess the compensation and accordingly, the tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased to Rs.7,000/- per month. The said finding is also based on proper application of law, therefore, cannot be faulted with.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 112 - S Kant - Full Document

Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009

7. The appellant has challenged the impugned award mainly on the ground that the claimants are not the dependents of the deceased. It is Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA SEN Signing time: 14-08-2025 18:11:38 3 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:32387 further argued that the compensation of award by the tribunal is on higher side in absence of any cogent evidence and material. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that there is difference between legal representative and claimants to claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1988') It is further contended that though in the provisions of Section 166, the word/phrase 'legal representative' has been used but that is only to file application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 but not to get compensation, unless the applicants are dependent on the deceased. Further it is submitted that dependency is paramount consideration for granting compensation. It is also contended that in celebrated judgments of the Hon'ble Apex court in the cases of Smt. Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 the factor of dependency is the sole basis for assessment and calculation of compensation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 20141 - R V Raveendran - Full Document
1