Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.21 seconds)The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Deepal Girishbhai Soni And Ors vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Baroda on 18 March, 2004
It was held by the Honourable Supreme Court that the remedy for payment of compensation both under Sections 163A and 166 are final and a claimant cannot pursue his remedy later under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, once his claim is determined under Section 163A of the Act. I am afraid that the said decision can be applied to the facts of the present case.
Bijoy Kumar Dugar vs Bidyadhar Dutta & Ors on 1 March, 2006
19. As far as the quantum is concerned, the deceased was a Ist Year BBA Student as evidenced from Ex.P6 issued by the Principal of the Thirupattur Arts and College of Science. According to the claimants, he was working as a part time accountant in a Finance Company and was earning Rs.3000/- p.m. The learned counsel for the Appellants contended that the deceased being a Ist Year BBA Student and having the potential of earning more, the future prospects are also more and relying upon the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Bijoy Kumar Dugar Vs. Bidyadhar Dutta (2006-ACJ-1058-SC) contended that while arriving at loss of income, the future prospects has to be considered.
R.K. Malik & Anr vs Kiran Pal & Ors on 15 May, 2009
In a recent decision of the Honourable Supreme Court rendered in the case of R.K.Malik Vs. Kiran Pal and others (2009-ACJ-1924-SC) the Honourable Supreme Court while awarding compensation to the parents for the death of the school children held thus:-
General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C vs Susamma Thomas on 6 January, 1993
In the aforesaid case in R.K.Malik Vs. Kiran Pal (2009-ACJ-1924-SC), the Honourable Supreme Court took into consideration the earlier decision passed by the Honourable Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas (1994-ACJ-1-SC), Sarla Dixit Vs. Balwant Yadav (1996-ACJ-581-SC), Lata Wadhwa Vs. State of Bihar (2001-ACJ-1735-SC) and held that the future prospects of the deceased is one of the vital aspects to be considered by the Tribunal, while arriving at the loss of income.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Deo Patodi & Ors on 12 May, 2009
In a recent decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported 2009-ACJ-2359-SC (Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Deo Patodi, it was held that deduction of 1/3rd for personal expenses is the ordinary rule.
Fakeerappa And Anr vs Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory And Ors on 13 February, 2004
In Fakeerappa Vs. Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory (2004-ACJ-699-SC) the Honourable Supreme Court deducted only 1/3rd towards personal expenses from the income of the bachelor.
Bilkish vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd.& Anr on 12 March, 2008
Similar is the view taken by the Honourable Supreme Court in Bilkish Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited (2008-ACJ-1357-SC) and Managing Director, Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs. Sarojamma (2008-ACJ-1619-SC).