Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 52 (0.36 seconds)
Biju R vs Vivekanandan on 22 March, 2022 cites

Nagappa vs Gurudayal Singh & Ors on 3 December, 2002

53. In M. Ramadevi [(2008) 3 SCC 379], the Apex Court repelled the contention of the appellant State Road Transport Corporation that, when there was no appeal by the claimants, in the appeal filed by the appellant-Corporation the High Court should not have enhanced the compensation amount. The Apex Court repelled the above contention of the appellant-Corporation, after quoting the law laid down in Nagappa [(2003) 2 SCC 274]. Adopting the multiplier of 10, as against the multiplier of 12 taken by the Tribunal and the High Court, the Apex Court re-fixed the amount payable to the claimants as Rs.2,40,000/-, to which the Apex Court added Rs.20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for non-pecuniary damages and loss of consortium, as there was no challenge by the Corporation to the award of such amounts.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 1279 - Full Document

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Mohd. Nasir & Anr on 12 May, 2009

The above principle was followed in the later decisions in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohd. Nasir [(2009) 6 SCC 280] and Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2009) 13 SCC 710]. The underlying principle discussed in the above decisions is with regard to the duty of the court to fix a 'just compensation' and it has now become settled law that the court should not succumb to niceties or technicalities, in such matters. The attempt of the court should be to equate, as far as possible, the misery on account of the accident with the compensation so that the injured/the dependants should not face the vagaries of life on account of the discontinuance of the income earned by the victim. There is another reason why the court should award proper compensation irrespective of the claim and, if required, even in excess of the claim.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 349 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next