Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.22 seconds)
Jakir Hussein vs Sabir & Ors on 18 February, 2015 cites

Nagappa vs Gurudayal Singh & Ors on 3 December, 2002

From the facts, circumstances and evidence on record it is clear that a cost of Rs.2,00,000/- was incurred during medical treatment of the appellant. Keeping in mind his medical condition and future medical needs and requirements, we further award Rs.2,00,000/- towards future medical treatment & incidental expenses in favour of the appellant by applying the legal principles laid down by this Court in the case of Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 1279 - Full Document

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

In the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (supra), this Court specifically gave the illustration of a driver who has permanent disablement of hand and stated that the loss of future earnings capacity would be virtually 100%. Therefore, clearly when it comes to loss of earning due to permanent disability, the same may be treated as 100% loss caused to the appellant since he will never be able to work as a driver again. The contention of the respondent Insurance Company that the appellant could take up any other alternative employment is no justification to avoid their vicarious liability. Hence, the loss of earning is determined by us at Rs.54,000/- per annum.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 3811 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Rekha Jain & Anr vs National Insurance Co.Ltd on 1 August, 2013

Further, we refer to the case of Rekha Jain & Anr. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.[7], wherein this Court examined catena of cases and principles to be borne in mind while granting compensation under the heads of (i) pain, suffering and (ii) loss of amenities and so on. Therefore, as per the principles laid down in the case of Rekha Jain & Anr. (supra) and considering the suffering undergone by the appellant herein, and it will persist in future also and therefore, we are of the view to grant Rs.1,50,000/- towards the pain, suffering and trauma which will be undergone by the appellant throughout his life. Further, as he is not in a position to move freely, we additionally award Rs.1,50,000/- towards loss of amenities & enjoyment of life and happiness.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 53 - V G Gowda - Full Document

M.C.D vs Asscn.,Victims Of Uphaar Tragedy & Ors on 13 October, 2011

As regards the rate of interest to be awarded on the compensation awarded in this appeal, we are of the view that the Tribunal and the High Court have erred in granting interest rate at only 7% p.a. and 8% p.a. respectively on the total compensation amount instead of 9% p.a. by applying the decision of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy[8]. Accordingly, we award the interest @9% p.a. on the compensation determined in the present appeal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 1848 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Mr. R.D. Hattangadi vs M/S Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 6 January, 1995

The learned counsel on behalf of the appellant, Mr. Parameshwara, who is appointed to assist this Court as amicus curiae has contended that the compensation awarded by both the Tribunal and the High Court is wholly inadequate. It is submitted by him that the High Court has committed a serious error in law in not awarding just and reasonable compensation in favour of the appellant by taking various factual aspects such as permanent disability suffered by him, medical evidence and keeping in view the law on the relevant aspects for quantifying just and reasonable compensation both under the heads of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. It is further urged by him that on the motor vehicle accident caused by the respondent-driver on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, the appellant has become permanently disabled due to which he will not be able to get suitable employment and lead a normal life in future. It is further contended by him that the future medical treatment and care of the appellant is very much necessary which will also be on the higher side. In cases where the claimant suffering from either total or partial permanent disablement, the term 'compensation' used under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, would not only include the expenses incurred for immediate treatment, but also the amount likely to be incurred by the appellant for future medical treatment/care and necessary assistance on account of permanent disablement caused to him on account of grievous injury of loss of his right arm in the said accident. Reliance was placed by the learned amicus curiae on the decision of this Court in the case of R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Private Limited[1], wherein it was held as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 1698 - N P Singh - Full Document
1   2 Next