Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.24 seconds)
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Rohit Kumar Singh & Ors. on 31 March, 2011 cites

New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Charlie And Anr on 29 March, 2005

29. Adverting to the second ground sought to be urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that a deduction of one-third ought to have been made towards the personal and living expenses of the injured, I am afraid this contention is devoid of substance and cannot be accepted. The reliance upon Charlie's case (supra) is also misplaced. All that was held in the said case was that in a case where the injured had suffered 100% disability, the logic applicable to a MAC APP. No.562/2004 Page 28 of 32 deceased can, in appropriate cases, taking note of all relevant factors, be reasonably applied.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 541 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Narinderpal Singh vs Punjab State And Ors. on 31 May, 1988

16. The respondents No.2 to 6 and the appellant herein have thus rightly been held to be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the respondent No.1, who has been given the choice to recover it from anyone of them or from all of them. The reliance placed by the Tribunal in this regard on the judgment of the Karnataka High Court rendered in The Madras Motor and General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. vs. Nanjamma and Ors., 1977 ACJ 241, the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Narinderpal Singh vs. The Punjab State and Ors., 1989 ACJ 106 and the Delhi High Court in the case of Smt. Angoori Devi and Ors. vs. Shri Megh Raj and Ors., 2003 ACJ 293, clinches the matter.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Smt. Angoori Devi & Others vs Shri Megh Raj & Others on 15 February, 2001

16. The respondents No.2 to 6 and the appellant herein have thus rightly been held to be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the respondent No.1, who has been given the choice to recover it from anyone of them or from all of them. The reliance placed by the Tribunal in this regard on the judgment of the Karnataka High Court rendered in The Madras Motor and General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. vs. Nanjamma and Ors., 1977 ACJ 241, the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Narinderpal Singh vs. The Punjab State and Ors., 1989 ACJ 106 and the Delhi High Court in the case of Smt. Angoori Devi and Ors. vs. Shri Megh Raj and Ors., 2003 ACJ 293, clinches the matter.
Delhi High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 13 - M S Siddiqui - Full Document

Pratap Narain Singh Deo vs Srinivas Sabata And Anr on 4 December, 1975

(i) Pratap Narain Singh Deo vs. Srinivas Sabata and Anr., AIR 1976 SC 222, wherein the expression "total disablement" has MAC APP. No.562/2004 Page 23 of 32 been interpreted to mean such disablement as incapacitates the injured for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident resulting in such disablement. In this case, the injured was a carpenter by profession, who had suffered loss of the left hand above the elbow, rendering him unfit for the work of carpenter. A four-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held it to be a case of total disablement.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 944 - P N Shinghal - Full Document

Rayapati Venkateswara Rao vs Mantai Sambasiva Rao And Anr. on 30 November, 2000

(iv) Rayapati Venkateswara Rao vs. Mantai Sambasiva Rao and Anr., II (2001) ACC 300 In this case, a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, after examining the entire gamut of case law, held that even though according to the doctor the physical disability sustained by the injured was 20-25%, he had lost his 100% earning capacity and was entitled for 100% compensation. In this case, the injured was a cleaner, who was rendered incapable of performing his duty as a cleaner, as he was performing prior to the accident, as he had to use a stick to walk after the accident.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 5 - Cited by 18 - N V Ramana - Full Document

Raj Kumar vs Ajay Kumar & Anr on 18 October, 2010

In Raj Kumar's case (supra), it was again clarified that in the case of an injured-claimant with a disability, what is calculated is the future loss of earning of the claimant, payable to the claimant (as contrasted from loss of dependency calculated in a fatal accident, where the dependent family members of the deceased are the claimants). Therefore, the Court held, there is no need to deduct one- third or any other percentage from out of the income, towards the personal and living expenses. The Tribunal in the present case, therefore, rightly refused to deduct one-third for the personal expenses of the injured-claimant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 3811 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009

The multiplier applicable in the instant case would be the multiplier of 18 in accordance with Sarla Verma case (supra), and thus calculated, the loss of earnings would be ` 22,68,000/-. The Tribunal has, however, taken the multiplier of 17 and I see no reason to interfere with the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal. The loss of earnings of the respondent No.1 are accordingly held to be in the sum of ` 21,45,000/-, as assessed by the Tribunal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 20141 - R V Raveendran - Full Document
1   2 Next