Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.25 seconds)
Sharmila Singh & Ors vs Sri Rabin Ghosh & Anr on 22 August, 2008 cites

The Divisional Controller, Ksrtc vs Mahadeva Shetty And Anr on 31 July, 2003

In the case of Divisional Controller KSRTC vs. Mahadeva Shetty and another (supra), the Supreme Court was dealing with a case of compensation for injury suffered by a mason having no fixed job who claimed Rs.9.83 lakh as compensation. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2.2 lakh, which was enhanced by the High Court to Rs.6.25 lakh. On appeal, the Supreme Court reduced the same to Rs.4.5 lakh with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 775 - A Pasayat - Full Document

B. Parimala And Ors. vs Riyaz Ahmed And Ors. on 6 July, 2000

In the case of B. Parimala and others vs. Riyaz Ahmed and others (supra), a Division Bench of Karnataka High Court was considering a case where the question was what should be the approach of a Tribunal in assessing compensation when the victim was a partner of a firm. In our view, principles laid down in that decision cannot have any application to a case a victim who was running a business based on his own labour and skill without the assistance of the others. We, therefore, find that the said decision is not relevant to the facts of the present case and is of no assistance to the respondent. We make no comments on the principles laid down therein as we are not concerned with the case of death of a partner of a firm.
Karnataka High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 7 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Ponnumany Alias Krishnan & Anr vs V.A. Mohanan & Ors on 27 March, 2008

In the case of Ponnumany and another vs. V.A. Mohanan and others (supra), the appellant due to an accident, became paralysed and was found to have suffered 100% disability by the Tribunal which on assessment of evidence fixed Rs.10,000/- as yearly income from agriculture and after taking into consideration the age of the applicant applied the multiplier of 13 and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- towards loss of earning capacity; Rs.20,000/- towards the pain and the sufferings; Rs.3,000/- towards the cost of hospitalization and Rs.50,000/- towards the continued loss of amenities. Thus, the total amount of compensation figured at Rs.2,03,000/-. Being aggrieved, the claimant preferred an appeal before the High Court, which enhanced the compensation towards loss of earning capacity to Rs.1,95,000/-. The High Court further enhanced the nursing cost and medical expenses by Rs.30,000/-. Therefore, there was enhancement of Rs.95,000/-. Still being aggrieved, the claimant preferred an appeal before the Apex Court. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that assessment of compensation based on notional income as specified in the Second Schedule of the Act was erroneous as the appellant was an agriculturist and had a land of 5 Acres. The Supreme Court overruled such contention and observed as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 20 - P P Naolekar - Full Document

General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C vs Susamma Thomas on 6 January, 1993

Nonetheless, there can be no two opinions that the assessment of compensation by applying the multiplier method is also a recognised way of calculation of the assessment of just compensation in case of fatal accident. What is in essence the object of the multiplier method has been summarised by the Apex Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others reported in AIR 1994 SC 1631 in the following way:
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 4294 - G N Ray - Full Document
1   2 Next