Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.19 seconds)Section 173 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009
11. The another contention raised by the
learned counsel for the second respondent is
regarding application of split multiplier. The inquest
mahazar as per Ex.P5 did refer that the deceased
was aged 56 years and also in the postmortem
report as per Ex.P7, the same is also referred. The
Tribunal also considered the age of the deceased at
56 years, wherein the petitioners have produced
Aadhar Cards pertain to the petitioners as well as the
2
ILR 1998 KAR 1934
3
AIR Online 2021 KAR 632
MFA.5285/2016 C/W
MFA CROB.103/2017
14
deceased. As per the same, the date of birth of the
deceased was 20.07.1958 with Aadhar Card number
860540748392. The deceased is said to be an
official working in the New India Assurance Company
Limited. If that is so, it is proper to assess the age
of the deceased having regard to his date of birth
and not on the basis of the Police records, such as,
inquest or postmortem report. If that is so, the age
of the deceased as on the date of accident will stand
at 58 years not 56 years. But, it is not so relevant
as the multiplier for the age of 56 to 60 years will be
'9' in view of Sarla Verma and others Vs Delhi
Transport Corporation and another4.
Union Of India And Others vs K.S. Lakshmi Kumar And Others on 21 June, 2000
21. In view of the National Insurance
Co.Ltd. -vs- Pranay Sethi and Others6 case, for
the age group of 50 to 60 years, '15%' will be the
future prospects and therefore, a sum of Rs.64,620/-
has to be added, then it comes to Rs.4,95,417/-.
If 1/3rd is deducted towards personal expenses, the
actual income comes to Rs.3,30,278/-. For the age
group of 56 to 60 years, the multiplier will be '9' and
therefore, loss of dependency will stand at
Rs.29,72,502/- (Rs.3,30,278x9).
Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
N. Jayasree vs Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance ... on 25 October, 2021
13. On contrary, learned counsel Sri Uday
Kumar for the first respondent has relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of N.
Jayasree and others Vs Cholamandalam Ms
General Insurance Company Ltd.5 wherein at
para 28 of the judgment, the Apex Court held as
under:
Narasimhaiah vs The General Manager And Anr. on 9 June, 1997
10. Learned counsel for the second respondent
also relied upon the evidence of Sparsha Hospital
staff, who produced the records and it is brought out
the history in Ex.P26/case sheet that the patient was
hit by a two-wheeler while crossing the road. When
the very eye-witness is present before the court and
he has very much asserted how the accident took
place, the evidence of PW-3 loses its importance. It
is not the case pleaded or found in the evidence that
the deceased was crossing the road or the accident
had occurred due to head-on collision between both
the motor cycles. Hence, I find strange in the
argument advanced by the learned counsel for the
second respondent and as seen from the entire
records, nothing is available to attribute any
contributory negligence against the deceased and
MFA.5285/2016 C/W
MFA CROB.103/2017
13
therefore, the ratio decided in Sri Narasimhaiah Vs
General Manager and another2 and also in
Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company
Limited, Bangalore -vs- Krishna Reddy and
Others3 rendered by this Court regarding application
of contributory negligence cannot be applied as the
eye witness i.e. PW-2, who has already deposed the
manner of accident as pleaded by the petitioners and
not as pleaded by the second respondent.
Smt Geetha Kumari vs Smt Chimmiri Rajeswari on 12 December, 2012
12. Learned Counsel for the second respondent
relied upon the unreported judgment of this Court in
MFA No.100513/2019 D.D.18.02.2019, wherein
Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Geetha and
others Vs Smt. Rajeshwari and another referring
to the judgment of K.S.Lakshmi Kumar (supra),
4
(2009) 6 SCC 121.
1