Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.20 seconds)Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Insurance Company Limited vs . Pranay Sethi And Others, (2017) 16 on 25 August, 2020
15) AW2-Ramkrishna Joshi, was the deceased was working
there as Senior Assistant with M/s. Century Mills. The evidence of
AW1, AW2 coupled with the School Leaving Certificate (Exh.9) and
Salary Register Extract of March & April 1993 indicates that, the
deceased was aged 47 years, he was in permanent employment of
M/s. Century Textiles and drawing a monthly salary of Rs.5,477/-. As
stated in the Salary Certificate (Exh.15) issued by the manager of the
Companion, his monthly salary was Rs.5,540/-. The aforesaid oral
and documentary evidence did not meet any challenge in the cross-
examination. Hence, the Tribunal correctly held that the monthly
income was Rs.5,470/-, which was annually Rs.65,640/-. All the
claimants were dependent on the income of the deceased. Therefore
and in view of the decisions in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma
and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 3, 30% of the
established net annual income should be added towards the future
Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009
15) AW2-Ramkrishna Joshi, was the deceased was working
there as Senior Assistant with M/s. Century Mills. The evidence of
AW1, AW2 coupled with the School Leaving Certificate (Exh.9) and
Salary Register Extract of March & April 1993 indicates that, the
deceased was aged 47 years, he was in permanent employment of
M/s. Century Textiles and drawing a monthly salary of Rs.5,477/-. As
stated in the Salary Certificate (Exh.15) issued by the manager of the
Companion, his monthly salary was Rs.5,540/-. The aforesaid oral
and documentary evidence did not meet any challenge in the cross-
examination. Hence, the Tribunal correctly held that the monthly
income was Rs.5,470/-, which was annually Rs.65,640/-. All the
claimants were dependent on the income of the deceased. Therefore
and in view of the decisions in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma
and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 3, 30% of the
established net annual income should be added towards the future
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram on 18 September, 2018
In view of the
decision in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram Alias
Chuhru Ram & Ors.4, Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are entitled to receive
Rs.48,000/- each as spousal, parental and filial consortium,
respectively. Additionally they are entitled to receive Rs.18,000/-
towards 'funeral expenses' and Rs.18,000/- under the head 'loss to
estate'. As a result, total compensation comes to Rs.10,59,987/-. Out
of this amount 15% (Rs.1,58,998/-) should be deducted towards the
15% contributory negligence of the deceased. Accordingly, the
claimants are entitled for the enhanced compensation as under :-
Section 173 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Abati Bezbaruah vs Dy. Director General Geological Survey ... on 14 February, 2003
The roznamas of the case
indicates that on some occasions, longer dates were given in the
claim. Needless to mention that an insurer is liable to pay "just
compensation" immediately after the accident. However, the Tribunal
did not consider as to how the claimants widow, minor children and
aged father survived in Mumbai after losing the sole earning member.
16.3) In Abati Bezbaruah vs Dy. Director General Geological
Survey5, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 18 observed that ;-
Master Arjun Fatchand Govindani vs Balshil Gulati And Anr. on 13 September, 1978
12) Mr. Parab, the learned Advocate for the Respondents
submitted that the plea of the contributory negligence should be
established by the Appellant. The Appellant failed to prove the
contributory negligence. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that
the deceased was 20% negligent, is incorrect. To substantiate this
submission, Mr. Parab placed his reliance on the decision in Master
Arjun Fatchand Govindani vs. Balshil Gulati & Anr.1, therein it is held
that burden of proving the contributory negligence of the claimants is
on the Respondents and it is not for the claimants to disprove it. Mr.
Parab also relied on the decision in National Insurance Company
1