Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.18 seconds)
United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Sonia And Ors on 3 May, 2019 cites

National Insurance Company Ltd vs Pranay Sethi Son Of Late Prashant Sethi ... on 20 April, 2011

Consequently, the compensation payable comes to `19,15,996/-. The claimants would not be entitled to the expenses as awarded by the Tribunal at ` 1,30,000/- since it is not in consonance with the judgment rendered in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), however, the compensation would be allowed to the claimants on account of increase in the income of the deceased and on account of future prospects.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 10133 - K Kannan - Full Document

Munna Lal Jain & Anr vs Vipin Kumar Sharma & Ors on 15 May, 2015

5. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle in their joint written statement have denied all the allegations while stating that the truck bearing registration No.HR- 39D-5069 was not involved in the accident. In the separate written statement filed by the Insurance Company an additional plea was taken that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding any valid driving licence. It was also alleged that the claimants have filed the claim petition in collusion with Respondents No.1 and 2 an exorbitant amount was claimed. Accordingly, it was alleged that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. Thereafter, issues were framed and the claimant-appellant Sonia herself stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and also examined Sandeep as PW-2, Rajbir as PW-3 and Gajanand as PW-4 apart from tendering relevant documents. On appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal held that the 3 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 12-05-2019 07:11:12 ::: FAO No. 6754 of 2017 -4- accident in question resulting into the death of Dharmender @ Dholu was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle at the instance of its driver. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at ` 8,000/- per month and taken his age to be more than 25 years on the date of accident and by relying upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others, 2013 ACJ 1403 and Munna Lal Jain & Anr. vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others, Civil Appeal No. 4497 of 2015 arising out of S.L.P. No. 8362 of 2013 {2015(1) J.T. Page 01 (Supreme Court )}, 50% of the monthly income of the deceased was added towards his future prospects. After adding 50% on account of future prospects, the monthly income of the deceased came to be ` 12,000/- per month and the annual income to be ` 1,44,000/-. Multiplier of 17 was applied since the deceased was more than 25 years of age and 1/3rd deduction was allowed for his own expenses and the total annual dependency came to be ` 96,000/-. Accordingly, compensation came to be ` 96,000 x 17 = ` 16,32,000/- and general damages were allowed to the extent of funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of estate etc. Aggrieved against the said award, two appeals have been filed: one by the Insurance Company and other by the claimants.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 1196 - Full Document

Smt. Rajesh And Others vs Rajbir Singh And Others on 29 January, 2010

5. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle in their joint written statement have denied all the allegations while stating that the truck bearing registration No.HR- 39D-5069 was not involved in the accident. In the separate written statement filed by the Insurance Company an additional plea was taken that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding any valid driving licence. It was also alleged that the claimants have filed the claim petition in collusion with Respondents No.1 and 2 an exorbitant amount was claimed. Accordingly, it was alleged that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. Thereafter, issues were framed and the claimant-appellant Sonia herself stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and also examined Sandeep as PW-2, Rajbir as PW-3 and Gajanand as PW-4 apart from tendering relevant documents. On appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal held that the 3 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 12-05-2019 07:11:12 ::: FAO No. 6754 of 2017 -4- accident in question resulting into the death of Dharmender @ Dholu was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle at the instance of its driver. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at ` 8,000/- per month and taken his age to be more than 25 years on the date of accident and by relying upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others, 2013 ACJ 1403 and Munna Lal Jain & Anr. vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others, Civil Appeal No. 4497 of 2015 arising out of S.L.P. No. 8362 of 2013 {2015(1) J.T. Page 01 (Supreme Court )}, 50% of the monthly income of the deceased was added towards his future prospects. After adding 50% on account of future prospects, the monthly income of the deceased came to be ` 12,000/- per month and the annual income to be ` 1,44,000/-. Multiplier of 17 was applied since the deceased was more than 25 years of age and 1/3rd deduction was allowed for his own expenses and the total annual dependency came to be ` 96,000/-. Accordingly, compensation came to be ` 96,000 x 17 = ` 16,32,000/- and general damages were allowed to the extent of funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of estate etc. Aggrieved against the said award, two appeals have been filed: one by the Insurance Company and other by the claimants.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 5161 - R Bindal - Full Document
1