Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.21 seconds)

General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C vs Susamma Thomas on 6 January, 1993

Though, Section 163A does not, in terms apply to the cases in which claim for compensation is filed under Section 166 of the Act, in the absence of any other definite criteria for determination of compensation payable to the dependents of a non-earning housewife/mother, it would be reasonable to rely upon the criteria specified in clause (6) of the Second Schedule and then apply appropriate multiplier keeping in view the judgments of this Court in General Manager Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and others, U.P. S.R.T.C. v. Trilok Chandra, Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another and also take guidance from the judgment in Lata Wadhwa's case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 4294 - G N Ray - Full Document

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation ... vs Trilok Chandra & Others on 7 May, 1996

Though, Section 163A does not, in terms apply to the cases in which claim for compensation is filed under Section 166 of the Act, in the absence of any other definite criteria for determination of compensation payable to the dependents of a non-earning housewife/mother, it would be reasonable to rely upon the criteria specified in clause (6) of the Second Schedule and then apply appropriate multiplier keeping in view the judgments of this Court in General Manager Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and others, U.P. S.R.T.C. v. Trilok Chandra, Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another and also take guidance from the judgment in Lata Wadhwa's case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 1415 - Full Document

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

Though, Section 163A does not, in terms apply to the cases in which claim for compensation is filed under Section 166 of the Act, in the absence of any other definite criteria for determination of compensation payable to the dependents of a non-earning housewife/mother, it would be reasonable to rely upon the criteria specified in clause (6) of the Second Schedule and then apply appropriate multiplier keeping in view the judgments of this Court in General Manager Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and others, U.P. S.R.T.C. v. Trilok Chandra, Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another and also take guidance from the judgment in Lata Wadhwa's case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 20141 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd vs Ahmed Thambi on 3 August, 2006

18. Tribunal has failed to award any amount under the head Loss of amenities. Considering the nature of injuries, extent of disablement and following the above decision, Rs.50,000/- is awarded under the said head. In addition to the above, we deem it fit to award a sum of Rs.2,000/- for damages to clothes and articles. Medical expenses of Rs.4,41,141/- is substantiated by production of Ex.P7-Medical Bill series and therefore, the same is sustained. In view of the re-working, total compensation due and payable to Rajasubhashini/claimant in MCOP No.147/2012/1st respondent in CMA No.1479/2015 and first Cross Objector in Cross Objection No.64/2016 works out to Rs.15,39,141/-. For the sake of convenience, the detailed compensation are as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 156 - Full Document

Reshma Kumari & Ors vs Madan Mohan & Anr on 2 April, 2013

20. Insofar as the challenge to the loss of contribution to the family of Rs.24,71,400/- in MCOP No.148/2012, the same is sustained. Going through the materials on record, we are of the view that the same has been arrived at by applying proper principles of law. Therefore, it is sustained. Compensation of Rs.25,000/- awarded under the head loss of love and affection to the father aged about 70 years is less. It is enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. Similarly, Rs.25,000/- awarded under the head loss of love and affection to the minor is less. Following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Reshma Kumari and others v. Madan Mohan reported in (2009) 13 SCC 422, the same is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- each, to the minor. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- to the widow under the head loss of consortium, which we deem it just and reasonable and hence the same is sustained. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- under the head funeral expenses.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 2700 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Smt. Rajesh And Others vs Rajbir Singh And Others on 29 January, 2010

In Rajesh vs. Rajbir Singh, reported in 2013 (2) TN MAC 55 (SC) = 2013 (9) SCC 54, the Hon'ble Apex Court, awarded Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, we deem it fit to award Rs.20,000/- under the head funeral expenses. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- under the head Transportation, and it does not require any modification. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head damages to clothes and articles. Hence we deem it fit to award a sum of Rs.2,000/- under the said head. The Tribunal, has not awarded any amount under the head loss of estate. Besides loss of love and affection of his father, minor child have also lost the estate. Hence, we deem it fit to award a sum of Rs.10,000/- under the head loss of estate to the minor child.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 5161 - R Bindal - Full Document
1   2 Next