Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.35 seconds)

Reliance General Insurance Comp. Ltd vs Shashi Sharma & Ors on 23 September, 2016

In Shashi Sharma's case, 2016 ACJ 2723 (SC), this court was dealing with the payments made to the legal heirs of the deceased in terms of rule 5(1) of the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependants of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 (for short 'the said Rules‟). Under rule 5 of the said Rules on the death of a government employee, the family would continue to receive as financial assistance a sum equal to the pay and other allowances that was last drawn by the deceased employee for periods set out in the Rules and after the said period the family was entitled to receive family pension. The family was also entitled to retain the Government accommodation for a period of one year in addition to payment of Rs. 25,000 as ex gratia.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 175 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document

Bhakra Beas Management Board vs Kanta Aggarwal & Ors on 7 July, 2008

In Shashi Sharma's case, a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court while hearing a reference also considered incidental question as to whether there was any conflict of opinion between the Coordinate two-Judge Benches of this Court, in the case of Bhakra Beas Management Board v. Smt.Kanta Aggarwal, 2008(11) SCC 366 on one hand, and that of Helen C. Rebello 4 MA No.495/2011 a/w CCROS NO.13/2013 v. Maharashtra SRTC, 1999 (1) SCC 90 and United India Insurance Company v. Petricia Jean Mahajan, 2002(6) SCC 281 on the other hand. The Supreme Court after adverting to the entire case law on the subject in paragraph No.16 concluded thus:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 100 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Mrs. Helen C. Rebello & Ors vs Maharashtra State Road Transport ... on 18 September, 1998

"(12) The principle expounded in this decision in Helen C. Rebello's case that the application of general principles under the common law to estimate damages cannot be invoked for computing compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. Further, the 'pecuniary advantage' from whatever source must correlate to the injury or death caused on account of motor accident. The view so taken is the correct analysis and interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939, and must apply proprio vigore to the corresponding provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 133 - Full Document

Sebastiani Lakra vs National Insurance Company Ltd. on 12 October, 2018

In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, particularly, in the latest judgment of Sebastiani Lakra (supra), I am of the considered opinion that the payment(s) received by the claimants in the instant case by way of ex-gratia are not deductible from the compensation payable under the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, as nothing has been brought to my notice to indicate that such payments have been only made because of the death of the deceased in motor accident and were not payable otherwise. Argument of learned ASGI, thus, is not tenable and the same is, accordingly, rejected.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 332 - D Gupta - Full Document

National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Mannat Johal on 23 April, 2019

9. The conclusion arrived at by the later three-Judge Bench is, thus, that deductions can be ordered only where the tort- feaser satisfies the Court that the amount has been paid to the claimants only on the ground of death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident. Essentially, the latter Bench has approved the ratio of Helllen C. Rebello. Reference to a recent two- Judge Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Mannat Johal and others, 2019 ACJ 1849 would also be of great assistance.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 278 - D Maheshwari - Full Document

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

Going by the age of the deceased, the multiplier of 14 was applicable but the Tribunal has erroneously applied the multiplier of 12, which is not in 11 MA No.495/2011 a/w CCROS NO.13/2013 consonance with law laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and reiterated in a Constitution Bench Judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 20141 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Mrs. Patricia Jean Mahajan & Others on 13 March, 2001

However, while dealing with the scheme the court held that applying a harmonious approach and to determine a just compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act it would be appropriate to exclude the amount received under the said Rules under the head of „pay and other allowances‟ last drawn by the employee. We may note that on principle this court has not disagreed with the proposition laid down in Helen C.Rebello or in Patricia Jean Mahajan (supra), but while arriving at a just compensation, it had ordered the deduction of the salary received under the statutory Rules."
1