Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.21 seconds)The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Pazhaniammal on 20 July, 2011
In New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Pazhaniammal
MACP No.153/2016
Vijay Kumar Dahiya versus Sachin Garg and others Page 3 of 11
(2011) (2) KLT 648, the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala has held that as a
general rule, it can be accepted that production of chargesheet is prima
facie sufficient evidence of negligence for the purpose of claim under
section 166 MV Act. If any party do not accept such chargesheet, the
burden must be on such party to adduce evidence. If the Tribunal feels that
chargesheet is collusive, it can record that chargesheet cannot be accepted
and call upon the parties at any stage to adduce oral evidence of accident
and alleged negligence. In such cases, issue of negligence must be decided
on other evidence ignoring the chargesheet.
Raj Kumar vs Ajay Kumar & Anr on 18 October, 2010
10. The case of Raj Kumar vs Ajay Kumar & Another (2011) 1 SCC 343,
is one of the most prominent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
which deals with compensation in injuries cases. It was held in this case
that in routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only
under the heads-(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation,
medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
Manusha Sreekumar vs The United India Insurance Co.Ltd. on 17 October, 2022
Further, there is no evidence of any income from the
truck which he allegedly possess nor any evidence of the EMIs which he
might be paying. Therefore, these factors does not show that the income of
petitioner was as alleged by him. Where a petitioner is not able to prove his
income, his notional income can be assessed as minimum wages.
(Manusha Sreekumar and Others vs United India Insurance Company
Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 7593/2022 dated 17/10/2022-Supreme Court-2022
LiveLaw(SC) 858). The minimum wages of State of Delhi at the time
MACP No.153/2016
Vijay Kumar Dahiya versus Sachin Garg and others Page 7 of 11
accident (29.03.2014) was Rs.8554/- for un-skilled category.
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi on 31 October, 2017
18. The copy of Aadhar card of the petitioner shows the year of birth of
petitioner as 1997, which would mean that he was around 37 years of age at
the time of accident and thus, multiplier of 15 would be applicable. Further,
an addition of income of injured for future prospects to the extent of 40%
has to be considered as the age of the petitioner was under the age of 40
years (National Insurance Company Limited vs Pranay Sethi and others
(2017) 16 SCC 680, Pappu Dev Yadav vs Naresh Kumar and others 2010
SCC online SC 752 and Sohan Lal vs. Taj Khan & Ors., 2019 ACJ 252,
Rajasthan High Court). The yearly income of the petitioner has been
assessed as Rs.2,40,000/-. In this after adding 40% of the future prospects
amounting to Rs.96,000/-, the yearly income with future prospects will
become Rs.3,36,000/-. In this, yearly income, a multiplier of 15 will make
the future income as 3,36,000x15= Rs.50,40,000/-. 15% loss of income due
to 15% percent functional disability will mean that the overall loss of
income to the petitioner shall be 15% of Rs.50,40,000/- which will be
Rs.7,56,000/. Therefore, this amount is awarded to the petitioner under this
MACP No.153/2016
Vijay Kumar Dahiya versus Sachin Garg and others Page 9 of 11
head.
Section 168 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
New India Assurance Company Ltd. Thru ... vs Smt. Washeema Bano And Ors. on 10 June, 2022
7. After investigation, the police filed the chargesheet against respondent
no.1 the driver of the car. Filing of chargesheet against the driver of
offending vehicle prima faice points to his culpability. (New India
Assurance Company Ltd vs Smt. Washeema Bano (2022) SCC OnLine
All 403 and Mangla Ram vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd (2018)
5SCC 656).
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
The United India Insurance Company ... vs Surinder Kaur And Others on 14 July, 2010
In cases like
the present one, where it appears that the injured may be earning more than
minimum wages some guess work is also permissible (United India
Insurance Company Ltd vs Satinder Kaur (2011) 11 SCC 780). Therefore
in the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the notional income of
the petitioner is fixed as Rs.20,000/- for the purpose of assessment of his
income in this case which he has proved to be his income from his job. His
hospitalization was for around six days. The petitioner has stated that he
was unable to work for around one year but again there is no evidence to
support this. But it is not difficult to presume that in case of fracture he
must have been disabled from work for a least three months as this would
have been the minimum time to heel his wound. Therefore, I award
Rs.20,000/-(20,000x3) as compensation under this head. Therefore, his loss
of income for three months is calculated as Rs.60,000/-.
1