Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.40 seconds)Arvind Kumar Mishra vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr on 29 September, 2010
"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."
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Dr. C.B. Singh vs The Cantonment Board, Agra on 12 September, 1973
20. The Allahabad High Court in C.B.Singh vs. The Cantonment
Board, Agra MANU/UP/0041/1974, while considering the claim for
damages against the respondents for having constructed a traffic island at
a place where there were no overhead lights nor taking other measures
for warning the vehicles of the traffic island, resulting in an accident,
held that if a danger is created or suffered to be created by a local
authority, it would be liable to pay damages for its negligence. It was
further held that the negligence is nothing but a breach of a duty to take
care. The basic duty of care or precaution is always implied where a
danger has been created by a person or authority, irrespective of the fact
as to whether the Legislature has authorized or not the creation of such a
danger.
Purshotam Dass vs New India Asso. Co. Ltd. & Ors. on 8 April, 2011
25. As far as the claim of damages is concerned, this Court in
Purshotam Dass, vs. New India Asso. Co. Ltd. & Ors.
MANU/DE/1876/2011 has held as under:
K. Suresh vs New India Assurance Co.Ltd & Anr on 19 October, 2012
In K. Suresh v.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Another (2012) 10 SCALE
516, after referring to Ramesh Chandra v. Randhir Singh
(1990) 3 SCC 723 and B. Kothandapani v. Tamil Nadu State
Transport Corporation Ltd., (2011) 6 SCC 420, this Court
expressed the view that compensation can be granted towards
permanent disability as well as loss of future earnings, for one
head relates to the impairment of person's capacity and the
other relates to the sphere of pain and suffering and loss of
enjoyment of life by the person himself.
Ramesh Chandra vs Randhir Singh And Ors.(Vice Versa) on 3 May, 1990
In K. Suresh v.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Another (2012) 10 SCALE
516, after referring to Ramesh Chandra v. Randhir Singh
(1990) 3 SCC 723 and B. Kothandapani v. Tamil Nadu State
Transport Corporation Ltd., (2011) 6 SCC 420, this Court
expressed the view that compensation can be granted towards
permanent disability as well as loss of future earnings, for one
head relates to the impairment of person's capacity and the
other relates to the sphere of pain and suffering and loss of
enjoyment of life by the person himself.
B.Kothandapani vs Tamil Nadu State Transport Corp.Ltd on 12 May, 2011
In K. Suresh v.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Another (2012) 10 SCALE
516, after referring to Ramesh Chandra v. Randhir Singh
(1990) 3 SCC 723 and B. Kothandapani v. Tamil Nadu State
Transport Corporation Ltd., (2011) 6 SCC 420, this Court
expressed the view that compensation can be granted towards
permanent disability as well as loss of future earnings, for one
head relates to the impairment of person's capacity and the
other relates to the sphere of pain and suffering and loss of
enjoyment of life by the person himself.
Govind Yadav vs The New India Insurance Co.Ltd on 1 November, 2011
In this
context, we may profitably refer to Govind Yadav v. New India
Insurance Company Limited (2011) 10 SCC 683, wherein this
Court after referring to the pronouncements in R.D. Hattangadi
v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. (1951) 1 SCC 551,
Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka
(2009) 6 SCC 1, Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan (2009) 13
SCC 422, Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. (2010) 10 SCC 254 and Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1
SCC 343 has laid down as under: -
Nizam'S Institute Of Medical Sciences vs Prasanth S.Dhananka & Ors on 14 May, 2009
In this
context, we may profitably refer to Govind Yadav v. New India
Insurance Company Limited (2011) 10 SCC 683, wherein this
Court after referring to the pronouncements in R.D. Hattangadi
v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. (1951) 1 SCC 551,
Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka
(2009) 6 SCC 1, Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan (2009) 13
SCC 422, Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. (2010) 10 SCC 254 and Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1
SCC 343 has laid down as under: -