Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.25 seconds)Section 168 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi on 31 October, 2017
8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Others
[2018(18) SCC 130] after considering Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranay
Sethi (Supra) has settled the law regarding consortium. Relevant paras of the
same are reproduced as under:-
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram on 18 September, 2018
8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Others
[2018(18) SCC 130] after considering Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranay
Sethi (Supra) has settled the law regarding consortium. Relevant paras of the
same are reproduced as under:-
Yadava Kumar vs Div.Mangr.,National Insurance Co.L.& ... on 31 August, 2010
"11. At the outset, it is pertinent to reiterate the concept of
`just' compensation under Section 168 of the Act. It is a
settled proposition, now through a catena of
decisions[4*] including the one rendered by the
Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi[5*] that compensation
must be fair, reasonable and equitable. Further, the
determination of quantum is a fact-dependent exercise
which must be liberal and not parsimonious. It must be
emphasized that compensation is a more comprehensive
form of pecuniary relief which involves a broad-based
approach unlike damages as noted by this court in Yadava
Kumar v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd
(2010) 10 SCC 341, para 17. The discussion in the
11 of 15
::: Downloaded on - 18-02-2026 21:13:00 :::
FAO-3408-2022 (O&M) -12-
Smt Shashikala vs Gangalakshmamma on 15 July, 2013
20. At this juncture, we must note the decision
in Shashikala v. Gangalakshmamma (2015) 9 SCC 150.
whereby this court deducted the entire amount earned as
income from house property while determining the
compensation under the Act. The decision in
Shashikala[13*] was a split decision because of
12 of 15
::: Downloaded on - 18-02-2026 21:13:00 :::
FAO-3408-2022 (O&M) -13-
disagreement between the bench on whether future
prospects are to be considered for awarding compensation
when the deceased is a self-employed person. Accordingly,
the matter was tagged and heard along with Pranay
Sethi[14*], wherein this court had conclusively decided
the abovementioned issue regarding future prospects. After
that, the matter was remitted back to a three-judge bench
for redetermination of compensation, wherein this court
again deducted the entire amount earned as income from
house property.
State Of Haryana And Another vs Jasbir Kaur & Ors on 5 August, 2003
In this respect, we are guided by the observations of
this court in State of Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur (2003) 7
SCC 484. wherein it was noted that -
Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara vs Shyam Singh Varma on 1 May, 2019
17. So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Varma
2019 ACJ 3176 and R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nandu State Transport
Corporation (2022) 5 Supreme Court Cases 107, the appellants-claimants are
granted the interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date
of filing of claim petition till the date of its realization.