Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.62 seconds)
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur And Ors. on 30 June, 2020 cites

National Insurance Company Ltd vs Pranay Sethi Son Of Late Prashant Sethi ... on 20 April, 2011

The decision in Munna Lal Jain (supra) was followed by another three-judge bench of this Court in Sube Singh & Ors. v. Shyam Singh (dead) & Ors.8 The Constitution Bench in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.,9 affirmed the view taken in Sarla Verma (supra) and Reshma Kumari (supra), and held that the age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 10133 - K Kannan - Full Document

New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Charlie And Anr on 29 March, 2005

(b) Determination of Multiplier With respect to the multiplier, the Court in Sarla Verma (supra), prepared a chart for fixing the applicable multiplier in accordance with the age of the deceased, after considering the judgments in General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C., Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas & Ors.,4 U.P.S.R.T.C. & Ors. v. Trilok Chandra & Ors.,5 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie & Ors.6 The relevant extract from the said chart i.e. Column 4 has been set out hereinbelow for ready reference :– Age of the deceased Multiplier (Column 4) Upto 15 years -
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 541 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Munna Lal Jain & Anr vs Vipin Kumar Sharma & Ors on 15 May, 2015

The decision in Munna Lal Jain (supra) was followed by another three-judge bench of this Court in Sube Singh & Ors. v. Shyam Singh (dead) & Ors.8 The Constitution Bench in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.,9 affirmed the view taken in Sarla Verma (supra) and Reshma Kumari (supra), and held that the age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 1196 - Full Document

Sube Singh And Ors vs Shyam Singh And Ors on 2 December, 2014

The decision in Munna Lal Jain (supra) was followed by another three-judge bench of this Court in Sube Singh & Ors. v. Shyam Singh (dead) & Ors.8 The Constitution Bench in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.,9 affirmed the view taken in Sarla Verma (supra) and Reshma Kumari (supra), and held that the age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 7 - A Chaudhry - Full Document

M/S Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance ... vs Mandala Yadagari Goud on 9 April, 2019

Another three-judge bench in Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mandala Yadagari Goud & Ors.,10 traced out the law on this issue, and held that the compensation is to be computed based on what the deceased would have contributed to support the dependants. In the case of the death of a married person, it is an accepted norm that the 7 (2015) 6 SCC 347.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 88 - S K Kaul - Full Document

Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram on 18 September, 2018

9.6. Multiplying the multiplicand of Rs. 2,51,675 by the multiplier of 15, the loss of dependency payable to the Claimants would work out to Rs. 37,75,125. 9.7. Insofar as the conventional heads are concerned, the deceased Satpal Singh left behind a widow and three 30 children as his dependants. On the basis of the judgments in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General (supra), the following amounts are awarded under the conventional heads :-
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 4992 - I Malhotra - Full Document
1   2 Next