Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.22 seconds)The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Jakir Hussein vs Sabir & Ors on 18 February, 2015
13 In view of the above decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in JAKIR HUSSEIN's case, the petitioner
is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- under the
head pain and suffering so also Rs.1,50,000/- under the
head loss of amenities.
Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009
So, in the light of the discussions made above
though any amount of compensation awarded does
not compensate the loss sustained by the petitioner,
court has to award compensation to reduce the
financial burden to the petitioner and to place him in
the same economical structure with best human
possible efforts and also after carefully considering the
records on hand and the evidence of PW-1, I hold that
the petitioner is suffering from at least 60% disability
to the whole body. The petitioner has stated that he is
aged 35 years at the time of accident but he has not
produced any documents to prove the same. However,
basing upon the medical records, I consider the of the
claimant as 36 years. Therefore, if the multiplier the
inclined applied as per latest decision of Sarla Verma
case, the multiplier applicable is 15. It is already held
Jagdish Chander (Dead) By L. Rs vs Brij Mohan & Ors on 6 February, 1978
8. Further he has also relied on the decision of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of JAGDISH v. MOHAN
AND ORS. in Civil Appeal No.2217/2018 wherein at para 8
and 9 the Apex Court has held as under:
Arvind Kumar Mishra vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr on 29 September, 2010
"18 In our view, the principles laid down in
Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. and Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar must be followed
by all the Tribunals and the High Courts in
determining the quantum of compensation payable
to the victims of accident, who are disabled either
permanently or temporarily. If the victim of the
accident suffers permanent disability, then efforts
should always be made to award adequate
compensation not only for the physical injury and
treatment, but also for the loss of earning and his
inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities,
which he would have enjoyed but for the disability
caused due to the accident."
Raj Kumar vs Ajay Kumar & Anr on 18 October, 2010
"18 In our view, the principles laid down in
Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. and Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar must be followed
by all the Tribunals and the High Courts in
determining the quantum of compensation payable
to the victims of accident, who are disabled either
permanently or temporarily. If the victim of the
accident suffers permanent disability, then efforts
should always be made to award adequate
compensation not only for the physical injury and
treatment, but also for the loss of earning and his
inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities,
which he would have enjoyed but for the disability
caused due to the accident."
Mr Ranjit Jagadish Bajaj vs Mr Madan Mohan on 5 August, 2010
In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of JAGADISH vs. MOHAN AND
OTHERS, in Civil Appeal No.2217/2018 arising out of
1