Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 45 (0.50 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Raj Kumar vs Ajay Kumar & Anr on 18 October, 2010
51. It is has been further observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors., (2011) 1 SCC 34 that:
Section 3 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 181 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009
56. Further, as the Petitioner was aged about 26 years at the time of
the accident, a multiplier of 17 shall be applicable (Ref: Sarla
Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6
SCC 121) and therefore, the notional income of the Petitioner/
injured comes to be ₹59,69,856/-.(₹3,51,168/- x 17).
Mr. R.D. Hattangadi vs M/S Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 6 January, 1995
compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately
restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object
of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result
of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and
equitable manner. The Court or tribunal shall have to assess the
damages objectively and exclude from consideration any
speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the
nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is
not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the
loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that
he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his
inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have
enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he
used to earn or could have earned. (See C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs.
T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376, R. D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest
Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker vs. Willoughby