Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (1.73 seconds)Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 165 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 164 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 45 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 74 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Dr. Dattatraya Laxman Shinde vs Nana Raghunath Hire on 8 August, 2011
Such reasoned finding is duly supported by a
decision of our Court in the case of Dr. Dattatraya Laxman Shinde Vs. Nana
Raghunath Hire & Ors.2 and other decisions which would support the conclusion
of the MACT in regard to the issue of medical bills as alleged to be disproved by the
appellant stand duly proved by the respondents amounting to Rs.20,27,910/-,
which would include medical bills of Rs.16,21,989/- raised by Kokilaben Hospital
which are not disputed by the appellant and further Rs.4,05,921/- to include other
bills for expenses incurred by the respondents towards the treatment of original
claimant at Jaipur which for the reasons set out above are correctly allowed/granted
by the MACT in its impugned judgment. The findings in the impugned judgment
in this regard would not warrant any interference.
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009
35. On the penultimate issue of quantification of compensation to the
respondents, we find that the impugned judgment has taken into due consideration
the monthly income of the deceased original applicant, which is not disputed by the
appellant as was stated in the application dated 10 June 2014 filed before the
MACT. We find that the MACT has applied the correct criteria of justifiable
multiplier to be 17 as set out in the impugned judgment. At this juncture, we may
refer to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.3, where the Supreme Court has, inter alia, held
that M-17 is to be applied for age group 26 to 30 years. Thus, in the given facts and
circumstances, the age of the deceased original claimant admittedly being 28 at the
relevant time, we find no irregularity much less illegality committed by the MACT
in its impugned judgment in this regard.