Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.27 seconds)

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

Considering the number of dependents i.e. widow, two children and aged mother, who are claimants, deduction on the count of 'personal expenses' ought to be made to the extent of 1/4th, instead of 1/3rd as done by learned Tribunal. However, the multiplier applied by learned Tribunal is on higher side. As per Smt.Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr., 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77, the suitable multiplier to be applied is '16'.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 20141 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Dhamayanthi on 21 February, 2019

Ex.R3 is the copy of the policy, which is 'B' policy i.e. comprehensive policy. Before considering the same, it is also pertinent to make reference to definition of the term 'goods'. Section 2 (13) of the ibid Act, defines 'goods' as includes livestock and anything (other than equipment ordinarily used with the vehicle) carried in a vehicle except living persons, but does not include luggage or personal effects carried in a motor car or the personal luggage of a passenger travelling in the vehicle. Therefore, considering the definition, the living person, as such, is not a 'goods', but if a dead person, is transported, becomes a 'cargo'. There is also no prohibition to transport a dead body in a goods vehicle. As held in Dhamayanthi's case (supra), there is no law that a dead body should always be carry in an ambulance or mortuary van.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1