Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.96 seconds)State Of Punjab And Anr. vs Guranwanti on 22 March, 1960
11. The Delhi High Court in Krishnawanti (supra) relied on a
judgment of Punjab High Court in The State of Punjab & Anr.
v. Guranwanti, 1960 PLR 571, where it was held as under:-
Ramesh Kumar Awasthi vs The Collector, Saharanpur And Ors. on 26 May, 1982
In Ramesh Kumar Awasthi v. The Collector, Saharanpur &
Ors., AIR 1982 Allahabad 425, a similar question came before
the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court.
The General Manager, Karnataka State ... vs Krishnan And Ors. on 16 June, 1980
423) and General Manager State Road Transport
Corpn. v. Krishnan (1981 ACJ 273).
Smt. Sushma Mitra vs Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport ... on 19 September, 1973
In Sushma Mitra v.
M. P. State Road Transport Corporation (1974
ACJ 87) it was held that the appellant was not
guilty of contributory negligence in keeping his
elbow on the window sill because it is common
practice for the passengers who sit near the
window to rest their arm on the window and there
was no evidence that the passengers were
cautioned not to do so. The Court held that the
passenger was not guilty of any contributory
negligence. We would like to emphasize that the
MAC APP 264/2005 Page 9 of 30
evidence on record shows that the place where the
accident occurred was outside the town and the
traffic was not heavy and there was ample space
for the two vehicles to pass each other without
coming close. If the drivers had taken adequate
care for the safety of the passengers the accident
could not have occurred in the manner it has
happened in the present case. There is also no
evidence that the bus coming from the opposite
direction blew its horn or that the appellant was
cautioned by the conductor or the driver on seeing
the bus coming from the opposite direction to
remove his hand from the window sill. The
appellant was going on a long journey from
Meerut to Rishikesh and in that" process it was
quite natural for him to rest his hand on the
window sill. It appears that two vehicles were
being driven with excessive speed as merely by the
impact the appellant's fore-arm was slit and
severed instantaneously leaving no time for the
appellant to withdraw his hand. These
circumstances show that the appellant was not
guilty of negligence by placing his elbow on the
window sill."
Concord Of India Insurance Co Ltd vs Nirmala Devi And Ors on 16 April, 1979
In Concord of
India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi & Ors., 1979 (4)
SCC 365, the Supreme Court observed that the determination of
compensation must be liberal, not niggardly since the law
values life and limb in a free country in generous scales.
General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C vs Susamma Thomas on 6 January, 1993
In General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport
Corporation, Trivandrum v. Mrs. Susamma Thomas & Ors.,
1994 ACJ 1, the Supreme Court held as under:-
Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd vs Ram Prasad Varma & Ors on 13 January, 2009
In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Prasad Varma & Ors.,
2009 (2) SCC 712, the Supreme Court held that the expression
'just' must be given its logical meaning. Though, the
compensation awarded cannot be a bonanza or a source of profit
but in considering as to what would be just and equitable, all
facts and circumstances must be taken into consideration.
Raj Kumar vs Ajay Kumar & Anr on 18 October, 2010
In the case of Raj Kumar (supra) it was
held that where compensation of more than 50% of loss of
earning capacity is granted, the compensation for loss of
amenities in life should be nominal.
Arvind Kumar Mishra vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr on 29 September, 2010
11. What requires to be assessed by the
Tribunal is the effect of the permanently disability
on the earning capacity of the injured; and after
assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a
percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in
terns of money, to arrive at the future loss of
earnings (by applying the standard multiplier
method used to determine loss of dependency). We
may however note that in some cases, on
appreciation of evidence and assessment, the
Tribunal may find that percentage of loss of
earning capacity as a result of the permanent
disability, is approximately the same as the
percentage of permanent disability in which case,
of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said
percentage for determination of compensation (see
for example, the decisions of this Court in Arvind
Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
2010 (10) SCC 254 and Yadava Kumar v. D.M.,
National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2010 (10) SCC 341.