Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.33 seconds)
R.K. Malik And Ors. vs Kiran Pal And Ors. on 17 May, 2006 cites

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Anwar Ali And Anr. on 3 July, 2003

v. Bimal Devi II 2000 ACC 380 (DB); Urmila v. Vijinder Singh III 2003 ACC 557; Shashi Jain v. Rajinder Yadav III 2003 ACC 262; Fakeerappa v. K.C.P. Factory ; Manju Devi v. Musafir Paswan IV 2005 ACC 15 (SC); Shyam Narayan v. Kitty Tours IV 2005 ACC 1; New India Assurances v. Anwar Ali III 2003 ACC 584 (DB); Daya Arora v. Kapur Singh IV 2005 ACC 313; Swaran Kanta v. Vijay Agarwal II 2002 ACC 70; Kanta Vohra v. Surat Singh I 2002 ACC 255(DB); Sangeeta v. Surender Kumar I 2004 ACC 266; Asha Gupta v. Ramji Lal I 2003 ACC 272; R.S.R.T.Cor v. Goru Ram III 2005 ACC 377(DB); U.I.I. v. S. Abhinesh III 2005 ACC 218(DB); Lata Wadwa v. State of Bihar ; M. S. Grewal v. Deep Chand Sood .
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 12 - K N Ojha - Full Document

Lata Wadhwa & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 16 August, 2001

8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3 defended the impugned award and it was submitted that the compensation awarded was just, fair and equitable. M.S. Grewal's case (supra) and Lata Wadhwa's case (supra) relied were sought to be distinguished on the ground that the children in the said cases belonged to well to do families and therefore had bright future prospects.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 1298 - Full Document

M.S. Grewal & Anr vs Deep Chand Sood & Ors on 24 August, 2001

8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3 defended the impugned award and it was submitted that the compensation awarded was just, fair and equitable. M.S. Grewal's case (supra) and Lata Wadhwa's case (supra) relied were sought to be distinguished on the ground that the children in the said cases belonged to well to do families and therefore had bright future prospects.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 397 - Full Document

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation ... vs S. Rajapriya And Two Others on 20 April, 2005

14. For calculating the yearly loss of dependency the starting point is the wages being earned by the deceased, less his personal and living expenses. This provides a basic figure. Thereafter, effect is given to the future prospects of the deceased, inflation and general price rise that erodes value and the purchasing power of money. To the multiplicant so calculated, multiplier is to be applied. The multiplier is decided and determined on the basis of length of dependency, which must be estimated. This has to be necessarily discounted for contingencies and uncertainties. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Dixit (supra), Managing Director TNSTC ltd. v. K.T. Bindu ; T.N. State Transport Corp. Ltd. v. S. Rajapriya ; New India Assurance co. ltd. v. Charlie (2005) 10 SCC 720 and United India Insurance co. ltd. v. Patrica Jean Mahajan etc.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 467 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Bijoy Kumar Dugar vs Bidyadhar Dutta & Ors on 1 March, 2006

17. The Second Schedule of the Act was introduced w.e.f. 14.11.1994. Date of accident in the present case is 18.11.1997. Thus the notional income mentioned in the Second Schedule and the multiplier specified therein can form the basis for the pecuniary compensation for the loss of dependency in the present cases. No fact and reason was highlighted during the arguments why the Second Schedule should not be applied in the present cases. No evidence was held and produced to show children who had expired were brilliant or there were circumstances to indicate they would have earned substantially higher income(see Bijay Kumar Dugar v. Bidyadhar Dutta and Ors. II (2006) SLT 651. The Second Schedule also provides for deduction of 1/3rd consideration towards expenses, which the victim would have incurred on himself if he had lived. As compensation for loss of dependency is to be calculated on the basis of notional income because the deceased was a child, it by necessary implication takes into account future prospects, inflation, price rise etc. To this extent arguments of the appellants have to be rejected.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 431 - L S Panta - Full Document

Smt Sarla Dixit & Anr vs Balwant Yadav & Ors on 29 February, 1996

14. For calculating the yearly loss of dependency the starting point is the wages being earned by the deceased, less his personal and living expenses. This provides a basic figure. Thereafter, effect is given to the future prospects of the deceased, inflation and general price rise that erodes value and the purchasing power of money. To the multiplicant so calculated, multiplier is to be applied. The multiplier is decided and determined on the basis of length of dependency, which must be estimated. This has to be necessarily discounted for contingencies and uncertainties. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Dixit (supra), Managing Director TNSTC ltd. v. K.T. Bindu ; T.N. State Transport Corp. Ltd. v. S. Rajapriya ; New India Assurance co. ltd. v. Charlie (2005) 10 SCC 720 and United India Insurance co. ltd. v. Patrica Jean Mahajan etc.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 794 - S B Majmudar - Full Document
1   2 Next