Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.35 seconds)The Railways Act, 1989
Master Mallikarjun vs Divnl.Mgr.National Ins.Co.Ltd.& Anr on 26 August, 2013
In addition, per Master Mallikarjun's case, he is
also entitled to non-pecuniary damages to the extent of
Rs.1,36,760/- (for 10% disability as indicated in Table 2
for an accident of the year 2019).
Kajal vs Jagdish Chand on 5 February, 2020
52. As already noticed above, the compensation payable
to a victim of a motor vehicle accident would be the
aggregate of both the pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses
suffered by the victim. Since the Apex Court has held in
Kajal's case and Ayush's case that the pecuniary loss
would have to be computed by adopting the multiplier
method i.e., ascertaining a notional income and applying
Master Ayush vs The Branch Manager, Reliance General ... on 29 March, 2022
78. Apart from the above, Karthik R., would also be
entitled for compensation of towards the non-pecuniary
loss as held in Master Master Mallikarjun's case but
however by the addition of the compounded annual
inflation rate (as indicated in Table 2 for an accident of the
year 2017) which would be a sum of Rs.4,84,617/-.
Article 43 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi on 31 October, 2017
6
National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680.
7
MFA No.103807 of 2016 c/w MFA 103835 of 2016, DD.27.05.2022
(Dharwad).
Sapna vs United Insurance Co.Ltd.& Anr on 14 May, 2008
In 2008, in Sapna's case1, the Apex Court, for
awarding compensation to 12 year old Sapna who was
completely disabled and unable to walk, applied the
multiplier method and adopted a notional income of
Rs.15,000/- p.a. and added a sum of Rs.75,000/- and
1
Sapna v. United Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., (2008) 7 SCC 613.
Mr. Michael Viegas, vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd., on 15 November, 2013
"8. While considering the claim by a victim child, it
would be unfair and improper to follow the structured
formula as per the Second Schedule to the Motor
Vehicles Act for reasons more than one. The main
stress in the formula is on pecuniary damages. For
children there is no income. The only indication in the
Second Schedule for non-earning persons is to take
the notional income as Rs 15,000 per year. A child
2
Michael v. Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, (2013) 14 SCC
1