Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (1.66 seconds)Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
United India Insurance Co.Ltd vs Shila Datta & Ors on 13 October, 2011
9. The following further observation available in para 10
of the Report would require specific note: (Shila Datta
case, SCC p. 519)
‘10.
Ravi Kapur vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 August, 2012
Additionally, the proceedings
under the Motor Vehicles Act were not adversarial and in
that regard, the evidence on record was sufficient to reach
at the conclusion that respondent No.2’s negligence led to
the accident and that the appellant was entitled to full
compensation. Finally, the appellant suffered 40%
permanent disability and 100% functional disability and on
that basis, the Tribunal erred by not granting higher
9
compensation to the appellant. He also contends that the
courts below erred in absolving the respondent No.1
insurance company from its liability. The following cases
were cited by the learned counsel in support of the
submissions: Kaushnuma Begum & Ors. vs. The New
India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.1, Dulcina Fernandes
and Ors. vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz and Anr.2, Bimla Devi
and Ors. vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and
Ors.3, Ravi Kapur v State of Rajasthan4, National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v Pranay Sethi & Ors.5, Kishan
Gopal & Anr. v Lala & Ors.6, Harbans Lal v Harvinder
Pal7, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v Pazhaniammal &
Ors.8, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v Deepak Goel9,
Manisha v Umakant Marotrao Kolhe10 and Mahawati
Devi v Branch Manager11.
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Pranay Sethi Son Of Late Prashant Sethi ... on 20 April, 2011
27. Reverting to the calculation of compensation amount,
taking the loss of monthly income due to permanent
disability of 40%, the appellant will be entitled to
Rs.2,25,792/ [Rs.840 per month (i.e. 40 % of Rs.2,100/)
+ 40% future prospects [as per Pranay Sethi (supra)] x 12 x
16, i.e. (840 + 336) x 12 x 16. We uphold the amounts
quantified by the Tribunal towards the heads for medical
treatment after the accident, motorcycle repair, mental and
physical problem, as it is. However, the appellant, in our
opinion, is additionally entitled to medical expenses for
procurement of a prosthetic leg, which is quantified at
Rs.25,000/ (Rupees twenty five thousand only). In
summation, the appellant would be entitled to the following
compensation:
Kishan Gopal & Anr vs Lala & Ors on 26 August, 2013
Additionally, the proceedings
under the Motor Vehicles Act were not adversarial and in
that regard, the evidence on record was sufficient to reach
at the conclusion that respondent No.2’s negligence led to
the accident and that the appellant was entitled to full
compensation. Finally, the appellant suffered 40%
permanent disability and 100% functional disability and on
that basis, the Tribunal erred by not granting higher
9
compensation to the appellant. He also contends that the
courts below erred in absolving the respondent No.1
insurance company from its liability. The following cases
were cited by the learned counsel in support of the
submissions: Kaushnuma Begum & Ors. vs. The New
India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.1, Dulcina Fernandes
and Ors. vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz and Anr.2, Bimla Devi
and Ors. vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and
Ors.3, Ravi Kapur v State of Rajasthan4, National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v Pranay Sethi & Ors.5, Kishan
Gopal & Anr. v Lala & Ors.6, Harbans Lal v Harvinder
Pal7, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v Pazhaniammal &
Ors.8, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v Deepak Goel9,
Manisha v Umakant Marotrao Kolhe10 and Mahawati
Devi v Branch Manager11.
Harbans Lal vs Harvinder Pal on 1 July, 2015
Additionally, the proceedings
under the Motor Vehicles Act were not adversarial and in
that regard, the evidence on record was sufficient to reach
at the conclusion that respondent No.2’s negligence led to
the accident and that the appellant was entitled to full
compensation. Finally, the appellant suffered 40%
permanent disability and 100% functional disability and on
that basis, the Tribunal erred by not granting higher
9
compensation to the appellant. He also contends that the
courts below erred in absolving the respondent No.1
insurance company from its liability. The following cases
were cited by the learned counsel in support of the
submissions: Kaushnuma Begum & Ors. vs. The New
India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.1, Dulcina Fernandes
and Ors. vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz and Anr.2, Bimla Devi
and Ors. vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and
Ors.3, Ravi Kapur v State of Rajasthan4, National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v Pranay Sethi & Ors.5, Kishan
Gopal & Anr. v Lala & Ors.6, Harbans Lal v Harvinder
Pal7, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v Pazhaniammal &
Ors.8, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v Deepak Goel9,
Manisha v Umakant Marotrao Kolhe10 and Mahawati
Devi v Branch Manager11.
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Pazhaniammal on 20 July, 2011
Additionally, the proceedings
under the Motor Vehicles Act were not adversarial and in
that regard, the evidence on record was sufficient to reach
at the conclusion that respondent No.2’s negligence led to
the accident and that the appellant was entitled to full
compensation. Finally, the appellant suffered 40%
permanent disability and 100% functional disability and on
that basis, the Tribunal erred by not granting higher
9
compensation to the appellant. He also contends that the
courts below erred in absolving the respondent No.1
insurance company from its liability. The following cases
were cited by the learned counsel in support of the
submissions: Kaushnuma Begum & Ors. vs. The New
India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.1, Dulcina Fernandes
and Ors. vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz and Anr.2, Bimla Devi
and Ors. vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and
Ors.3, Ravi Kapur v State of Rajasthan4, National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v Pranay Sethi & Ors.5, Kishan
Gopal & Anr. v Lala & Ors.6, Harbans Lal v Harvinder
Pal7, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v Pazhaniammal &
Ors.8, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v Deepak Goel9,
Manisha v Umakant Marotrao Kolhe10 and Mahawati
Devi v Branch Manager11.
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Deepak Goel & Ors. on 24 January, 2014
Additionally, the proceedings
under the Motor Vehicles Act were not adversarial and in
that regard, the evidence on record was sufficient to reach
at the conclusion that respondent No.2’s negligence led to
the accident and that the appellant was entitled to full
compensation. Finally, the appellant suffered 40%
permanent disability and 100% functional disability and on
that basis, the Tribunal erred by not granting higher
9
compensation to the appellant. He also contends that the
courts below erred in absolving the respondent No.1
insurance company from its liability. The following cases
were cited by the learned counsel in support of the
submissions: Kaushnuma Begum & Ors. vs. The New
India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.1, Dulcina Fernandes
and Ors. vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz and Anr.2, Bimla Devi
and Ors. vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and
Ors.3, Ravi Kapur v State of Rajasthan4, National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v Pranay Sethi & Ors.5, Kishan
Gopal & Anr. v Lala & Ors.6, Harbans Lal v Harvinder
Pal7, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v Pazhaniammal &
Ors.8, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v Deepak Goel9,
Manisha v Umakant Marotrao Kolhe10 and Mahawati
Devi v Branch Manager11.
Smt. Manisha Wd/O Prakash Patil And 2 ... vs Mr. Umakant Marotrao Kolhe And Antoher on 6 August, 2015
Additionally, the proceedings
under the Motor Vehicles Act were not adversarial and in
that regard, the evidence on record was sufficient to reach
at the conclusion that respondent No.2’s negligence led to
the accident and that the appellant was entitled to full
compensation. Finally, the appellant suffered 40%
permanent disability and 100% functional disability and on
that basis, the Tribunal erred by not granting higher
9
compensation to the appellant. He also contends that the
courts below erred in absolving the respondent No.1
insurance company from its liability. The following cases
were cited by the learned counsel in support of the
submissions: Kaushnuma Begum & Ors. vs. The New
India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.1, Dulcina Fernandes
and Ors. vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz and Anr.2, Bimla Devi
and Ors. vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and
Ors.3, Ravi Kapur v State of Rajasthan4, National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v Pranay Sethi & Ors.5, Kishan
Gopal & Anr. v Lala & Ors.6, Harbans Lal v Harvinder
Pal7, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v Pazhaniammal &
Ors.8, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v Deepak Goel9,
Manisha v Umakant Marotrao Kolhe10 and Mahawati
Devi v Branch Manager11.