Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.32 seconds)The Indian Penal Code, 1860
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Pranay Sethi And Others on 22 June, 2022
In view of the settled proposition of law in
Sarla Verma case and Pranay Sethi case, 40% has to be added towards
future prospectus of the petitioner, who was aged 30 years and who was not
a permanent employee and therefore, the Tribunal has erred in adding
future prospectus as 50% and it should be reduced as 40% for future
prospectus. By adding 40%, the income of the petitioner is fixed at
Rs.14,035/- p.m. [(Rs.10,025/- + Rs.4,010/- (40% of Rs.10,025/-)].
M/S.Oriental Insurance Company ... vs S.Venkateswari on 7 December, 2016
“In this regard, it would be
appropriate to place reference in the decision of
a Division Bench in C.M.A.No.661 of 2016
(National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs.
Aanandhanayaki and others) dated
31.03.2016, wherein it has been held in an
identical situation that only the completed age
of the deceased should be taken into
consideration.”
Another decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in
CDJ 2016 MHC 6131 (Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Vs.
Venkateswari & Others), wherein also split multiplier was not adopted.
M/S Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance ... vs Mandala Yadagari Goud on 9 April, 2019
“48. Another three-judge bench
in Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Mandala Yadagari Goud, (2019) 5
SCC 554 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 age of the deceased would be taken into
account. Thus, even in the case of a
bachelor, the same principle must be
applied.”
Manasvi Jain vs Delhi Transport Cor.Ltd.& Ors on 23 April, 2014
26. It is admitted that the deceased Murugapandian @
Murugapandi was working as an Assistant in LIC and he was earning
Rs.17,972/- p.m. as gross salary as evidenced from Ex.P.14 - Salary
Certificate. He was a permanent employee. These facts could not be denied
Page 25 of 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)Nos.932,933,321,322 and 323 of 2017
by the appellant. It is a settled principle that gross salary has to be taken
into account for fixing compensation in motor accident cases. Moreover,
the cost of inflation of index is increasing year by year. So, the said
Rs.17,972/- is to be taken as monthly income of the deceased. The Tribunal
has deducted 10% towards income tax in view of the decision reported in
[2014 (1) TNMAC 647 (SC) (Manasvi Jain vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation Ltd., & Ors.] and 2014 (2) TNMAC 608 (SC) (Yerrammal
& Ors. vs. Krishnamurthy & Another]. Both sides have also accepted the
same. So, the income fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.16,175/- [Rs.17,972/-
minus Rs.1,797/- (10% of Rs.17,972/-)] is held as correct.
Yerramma & Ors vs G. Krishnamurthy & Anr on 28 August, 2014
26. It is admitted that the deceased Murugapandian @
Murugapandi was working as an Assistant in LIC and he was earning
Rs.17,972/- p.m. as gross salary as evidenced from Ex.P.14 - Salary
Certificate. He was a permanent employee. These facts could not be denied
Page 25 of 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)Nos.932,933,321,322 and 323 of 2017
by the appellant. It is a settled principle that gross salary has to be taken
into account for fixing compensation in motor accident cases. Moreover,
the cost of inflation of index is increasing year by year. So, the said
Rs.17,972/- is to be taken as monthly income of the deceased. The Tribunal
has deducted 10% towards income tax in view of the decision reported in
[2014 (1) TNMAC 647 (SC) (Manasvi Jain vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation Ltd., & Ors.] and 2014 (2) TNMAC 608 (SC) (Yerrammal
& Ors. vs. Krishnamurthy & Another]. Both sides have also accepted the
same. So, the income fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.16,175/- [Rs.17,972/-
minus Rs.1,797/- (10% of Rs.17,972/-)] is held as correct.
Sidram vs The Divisional Manager United India ... on 16 November, 2022
41. The Hon’be Supreme Court in its verdict reported in 2022 Live
Law (SC) 968 (Sidram vs. The Divisional Manager, United India
Insurance Co.Ltd. & Anr.) has held that the process of determining
Page 36 of 43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)Nos.932,933,321,322 and 323 of 2017
compensation by the Court is essentially a very difficult task and can never
be an exact science. Perfect compensation is hardly possible, more so the
claims of injury and disability point out ‘money cannot renew a physical
frame that has been battered.’ and appreciated the fixation of compensation
applying multiplier on notional income. Therefore, considering the age of
34 years, the multiplier '16' fixed by the Tribunal is correct. Hence, the loss
of income to the petitioner would come to Rs.14,035/- x 12 x 16 x 60/100 =
Rs.16,16,832/-.