Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.34 seconds)Article 141 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 128 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi on 31 October, 2017
14. Now coming to the last aspect, i.e., the conventional
heads, in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay
Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680], it has been standardised
at Rs.15,000 for loss of estate; Rs.40,000 towards loss of
consortium (in the present case loss of love and affection)
and Rs.15,000 towards funeral expenses. The total amount,
thus, would be Rs.70,000, which as per the said judgment
is capable of being enhanced @ 10 percent in the span of
every three years. However, we are still within the window
of three years." "underline supplied"
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Indian Bank vs Abs Marine Products Pvt. Ltd on 18 April, 2006
In State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih [(2014) 8 SCC
883] a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court affirmed the view
taken in ABS Marine Products' case (supra) holding that, the
directions issued under Article 142 do not constitute a binding
precedent unlike Article 141 of the Constitution of India. They are
direction issued to do proper justice and exercise of such power,
cannot be considered as law laid down by the Supreme Court
35
MACA.No.631 OF 2015(D)
under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court
held further that, the directions of the Court under Article 142 of
the Constitution, while moulding the relief, that relax the
application of law or exempt the case in hand from the rigour of
the law in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances do not
comprise the ratio decidendi and therefore lose its basic premise
of making it a binding precedent. Paras.11 to 13 of the judgment
read thus;
Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009
In Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation
[(2009) 6 SCC 121] the Apex Court, on the question of
deduction towards the personal and living expenses of the
deceased held that, the personal and living expenses of the
deceased should be deducted from his monthly income, to arrive
at the contribution to the dependents. Where the deceased was
married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of
the deceased should be one-third where the number of
dependent family members is 2 to 3; one-fourth where the
number of dependent family members is 4 to 6; and one-fifth
where the number of dependent family members exceeds 6. In
regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and
living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would
tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the
possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event
21
MACA.No.631 OF 2015(D)
the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut
drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father
is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a
dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a
dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers
and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they
will either be independent and earning, or married, or be
dependent on the father. Thus even if the deceased is survived by
parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be
a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and
living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to
the family. However, where family of the bachelor is large and
dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case
where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger
non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses
may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will
be taken as two-third.
Santosh Devi vs National Insurance Co.Ltd.& Ors on 23 April, 2012
38. In Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] the
Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that the head relating
to loss of care and guidance for minor children does not exist.
Though Rajesh refers to Santosh Devi v. National Insurance
Company Limited [(2012) 6 SCC 421], it does not seem to
25
MACA.No.631 OF 2015(D)
follow the same. The conventional and traditional heads cannot
be determined on percentage basis because that would not be an
acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said
heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a
reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that
price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a
field have to be noticed. The Court cannot remain oblivious to the
same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise,
there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and
unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation
lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the
orders passed by the Tribunals and Courts are likely to be
unguided. Therefore, the reasonable figures on conventional
heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral
expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and
Rs.15,000/- respectively. The principle of revisiting the said
heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be
fact-centric or quantum-centric. The Apex Court observed that, it
would be condign that the amounts that have quantified as above
should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years
26
MACA.No.631 OF 2015(D)
and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of
three years, which will bring in consistency in respect of those
heads.