Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (1.89 seconds)
A.P. State Road Transport Corporation ... vs M.Narsing Rao on 20 June, 2014 cites

Bhagwandas vs Mohd. Arif on 20 July, 1987

b) Secondly, questioning the quantum of compensation learned counsel vehemently argued that the Tribunal grossly erred in granting compensation of Rs.6,41,238/- under the head loss of income due to 50% disability in spite of the fact that the claimant continued in the same job and gets same salary and no evidence was adduced to show either he was terminated from his service or shifted to less salaried section. He further argued that the Tribunal committed another error in selecting 13 as multiplier. Basing on Bhagwandas vs. Mohd. Arif it ought to have taken 10 as multiplier for computation of compensation if it is convinced that he is entitled to compensation for the alleged loss of income. He thus prayed to allow the appeal and exonerate APSRTC from its liability or alternatively reduce the compensation suitably.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 14 - Cited by 43 - Full Document

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

8) The above certificates amply manifest his dancing prowess. It is need less to emphasise that nimble and dexterous movement of the feet of a versatile dancer give immense pleasure to commoner and connoisseur alike. Fate with its cruel sword pruned not only his leg but also the very art of the claimant and no amount of compensation can substitute his misery. Unfortunately, the Tribunal while assessing the compensation for loss of amenities, has lost sight of this aspect and granted only a pittance. In the result, the Tribunal committed an error of granting what it ought not to and failed to grant what it ought to. This can be undone by shifting the sum of Rs.6,41,238/- from loss of earning power to loss of amenities. It is thus directed that total compensation for loss of amenities shall be treated as Rs.6,66,238/- (Rs.6,41,238/- + Rs.25,000/-). The appellant further argued as if the Tribunal ought to have selected 10 instead of 13 as multiplier. I am unable to accept this argument because in Sarla Vermas case (2 supra) Honourable Apex Court fixed 13 as multiplier for the persons in the age group of 4650 and the petitioner was aged 46 years by the date of accident. It may be noted on behalf of claimant it is argued that he deserves more compensation for loss of earning power than what was awarded by the Tribunal, but in view of foregoing discussion he does not deserve compensation for loss of earning power as there is no such present loss.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 20141 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Santosh Devi vs National Insurance Co.Ltd.& Ors on 23 April, 2012

5) Per contra, while supporting the judgment learned counsel for respondent/claimant argued that claimant is entitled to more compensation than awarded by the Tribunal inasmuch as Tribunal while computing compensation for loss of earnings has taken only gross salary of the claimant into consideration without considering future prospects He argued that if future prospects as observed in Smt. Sarla Verma and Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. and Santosh Devi vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others were taken into consideration, the compensation would have been much more than what was awarded. He thus prayed to dismiss the appeal and enhance the compensation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 2663 - G S Singhvi - Full Document

Raj Kumar vs Ajay Kumar & Anr on 18 October, 2010

b) The next argument of appellant is with regard to quantum of compensation. It is true that there is no clarification in the evidence of PW1 that he was terminated from service due to disability. No doubt, he stated that due to amputation of his right leg he was totally disabled to his job and also his regular domestic duties but there is no clinching proof that he was terminated from service. He neither examined any authority from his office nor produced termination order. On the other hand, in the cross-examination he stated that he is still having 13 years of service. Therefore, it is clear that he is still continued in service with same salary. Hence, the point is, a person who suffered permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident and continued in the same job and gets the same salary whether entitled to compensation for loss of future income. The observation of Honourable Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and another is pertinent in the present context and hence extracted thus:
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 3811 - R V Raveendran - Full Document
1