Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.24 seconds)Smt. Mithu Rani Sardar And Ors. vs United India Insurance Company Ltd. And ... on 6 October, 2005
In view of the findings in the case titled as Mithu Rani Sardar Vs. United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and the explanation regarding late lodging of
FIR by Sh. Amrit Laleye witness in the FIR itself, the arguments of ld. counsel
for respondent no. 3 that there is a delay of about one month and 25 days in
lodging the FIR and petitioner has not stated anywhere about the number of
offending vehicle before lodging the FIR, so it can not be believed that the
accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle
by respondent no. 1, are not tenable at all, so the same are rejected.
Sh. Subhash Chand S/O Sh. Prabhu Dayal vs Sh. Rulda Singh S/O Sh. Niranjan Singh ... on 12 February, 2007
In view of the evidence of the Doctor it is evident
that the petitioner would not be able to work in the same manner he was doing
before as well as in view of the findings of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case
titled as Subhash Chand Vs. Rulda Singh and another reported in II (2007)
19
ACC 776 and evidence of PW7, I find it justify that loss of earning capacity of
the petitioner can be taken maximum as 5% to the whole body, so I assess the
loss of earning capacity of petitioner as 5% to the whole body. The loss of
earning capacity of the petitioner is assessed at 5%, so his 5% loss of income
shall be Rs.250/ per month which shall be Rs.3,000/ annually. The age of the
petitioner is taken as about 32 years for the purpose of calculation of
multiplier at the time of accident, so a multiplier of 17 is adopted on the annual
loss of income of Rs.3,000/. Thus, a sum of Rs.54,000/ is to be paid to the
petitioner for the loss of his future earning on account of permanent disability.
Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
1