Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.25 seconds)The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Section 1A in The Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 [Entire Act]
Gujarat State Road Transport ... vs Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai & Another on 11 May, 1987
5. Under the clause reproduced above, a claim petition can be filed by the legal representatives of the deceased whose death has resulted by an motor accident. The word "legal representative" has been interpreted in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and Anr. and it has been observed as under:
Section 165 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Smt. T.S. Rukmani And Anr. vs M.B. Aiyappa And Ors. on 17 October, 2003
2. Mr. C.S. Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant has raised two fold contentions. His first contention is that claim petition filed by the claimant Haleema Begum was not maintainable. According to him Haleema Begum was not dependent legal representative of the deceased. He submitted that claimant Haleema Begum is married with Mohd Shafi and she was residing in her matrimonial house, therefore, she is not entitled to the compensation. In support of his submissions he relied upon JKLR Vol. III, 2001 Samvat, 189, Sultan Loan v. Akbar Dar Kirtikant D. Vadidaria v. State of Gujarat 1988 ACJ 667 Padma Devi v. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. , T.S. Rukmani and Anr. v. M.B. Aiyappa and Ors. 1987 ACJ 31 (Madras) N. Lakshmi and Anr. v. Pichaiammal and Ors. 1987 ACJ 245 (P&H), Gurdial Kaur and Ors v. Atma Singh and Ors. 1987 ACJ, 561 (SC) Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Ramanbhai Prabharbhai and Anr. 1989 ACJ 622 (AP), Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. P. Raghavaiah and Ors. 1989 ACJ 1128 (All) Nathi Singh v. Vimlesh Gupta and Ors. Chameli Devi and Anr. v. Delhi Transport Corporation, and , Shiv Kumar and Ors. v. Raj Kumar and Ors.. The second contention raised by learned Counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has awarded the compensation on higher side by considering the income of the deceased as Rs. 3000/- per month. He contended that there is no evidence on record to show that deceased was earning Rs. 3000/- per month. He also contended that the Tribunal has committed an error while applying the multiplier, as the multiplier has to be adopted by taking into consideration the age of the deceased as well as of the claimant.
Section 8 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Gian Singh And Ors. vs Ram Krishan Kohli And Ors. on 26 December, 2001
6. A Division Bench of this Court in Gian Singh and Ors. v. Ram Krishan Kohli and Ors. 2002 KLJ 106, has observed as under:
Chandan Singh And Anr. vs S.E.W. Construction Co. Ltd. And Ors. on 3 January, 2003
In Chandan Singh and Anr. v. S.E.W. Construction Co. Ltd. and Ors. , a Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that claim for compensation under the Act cannot be denied where the legal representative are earning and do not depend upon the deceased for survival.