Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.25 seconds)The Factories Act, 1948
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi on 31 October, 2017
In fact, I find it appropriate to place on record that age of claimant-respondent being 22 years, as per judgment of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and others, AIR 2009 SC 3104 as affirmed in Reshma Kumari and others vs. Madan Mohan and others, (2013) ACC 907 (SC) and also by Constitution Bench in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, AIR 2017 SC 5157, multiplier applicable in case in hand would have been 18 but Tribunal has actually applied multiplier of 15, therefore, actual determination of compensation by Tribunal is on the lower side. However, since claimant-respondent has not preferred any appeal, therefore, I find no occasion to enhance compensation. In fact, appellant is benefited, still has chosen to file appeal, which should not have been done.
Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009
In fact, I find it appropriate to place on record that age of claimant-respondent being 22 years, as per judgment of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and others, AIR 2009 SC 3104 as affirmed in Reshma Kumari and others vs. Madan Mohan and others, (2013) ACC 907 (SC) and also by Constitution Bench in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, AIR 2017 SC 5157, multiplier applicable in case in hand would have been 18 but Tribunal has actually applied multiplier of 15, therefore, actual determination of compensation by Tribunal is on the lower side. However, since claimant-respondent has not preferred any appeal, therefore, I find no occasion to enhance compensation. In fact, appellant is benefited, still has chosen to file appeal, which should not have been done.
Section 173 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 80 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Reshma Kumari & Ors vs Madan Mohan & Anr on 2 April, 2013
In fact, I find it appropriate to place on record that age of claimant-respondent being 22 years, as per judgment of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and others, AIR 2009 SC 3104 as affirmed in Reshma Kumari and others vs. Madan Mohan and others, (2013) ACC 907 (SC) and also by Constitution Bench in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, AIR 2017 SC 5157, multiplier applicable in case in hand would have been 18 but Tribunal has actually applied multiplier of 15, therefore, actual determination of compensation by Tribunal is on the lower side. However, since claimant-respondent has not preferred any appeal, therefore, I find no occasion to enhance compensation. In fact, appellant is benefited, still has chosen to file appeal, which should not have been done.
1