Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.31 seconds)Section 168 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Pranay Sethi And Others on 22 June, 2022
32. Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court on the issue of just compensation and the scope and ambit of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, this Court is of the considered opinion that no addition towards future prospects is required to be granted in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. Moreover, since the claimants deceaseds son(s) are earning monthly salary on revised pay scale, this Court is of the considered opinion that Learned Tribunal was right in not taking into consideration the addition toward the future prospects looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Therefore, in view of what has been narrated herein above any addition towards future prospects would not subserve the principle of just compensation and may result in awarding compensation beyond what can be termed fair, reasonable and equitable.
Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur And Ors. on 30 June, 2020
Subsequently, the Honble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur reported in 2021 11 SCC 780 has been pleased to hold as under:
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram on 18 September, 2018
Consortium @ Rs. 40,000 6 dependents = Rs. 2,40,000/- + Rs. 15,000/- loss of estate + Rs. 15,000/- funeral expenses. Pranay Sethi (Supra); Nanu Ram (supra)
Syed Basheer Ahamed & Ors vs Mohd. Jameel & Anr on 6 January, 2009
25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed & Others versus Mohammed Jameel & Another reported in (2009) 2 SCC 225 has been pleased to observe that section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; enjoins the Learned Tribunal to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to be just. However, the objective factors, which may constitute the basis of compensation appearing as just, have not been indicated in the Motor Vehicles Act. Thus, the expression which appears to be just bestows a wide discretion upon the Learned Tribunal in the matter of determination of compensation. For a ready reference Section 168 of the Act of 1988 is reproduced herein below:
The Divisional Controller, Ksrtc vs Mahadeva Shetty And Anr on 31 July, 2003
28. The aforesaid view is further strengthened by the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Divisional Controller, KSRTC versus Mahadeva Shetty & Another reported in (2003) 7 SCC 197 wherein the Honble Court while interpreting the meaning of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, held that the compensation awarded in the case of motor vehicle accident should not be inadequate and should neither be unreasonable, excessive, nor deficient. For a ready reference, paragraph 10 and 12 of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow,
Bhakra Beas Management Board vs Kanta Aggarwal & Ors on 7 July, 2008
29. The Honble Supreme Court while deciding the case of Bhakra Beas Management Board v. Kanta Aggarwal and Others reported in (2008) 11 SCC 366 has observed as under:
Gobald Motor Service Ltd. & Another vs R. M. K. Veluswami & Others on 14 April, 1961
30. Similarly, in the case of Gobald Motor Service Ltd. And another v. R.M.K. Veluswami and others reported in (1962) 1 SCR 929, the Honble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe as follows: