Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.85 seconds)R.K. Malik & Anr vs Kiran Pal & Ors on 15 May, 2009
Though it had built upon the dispensation in R.K.Malik
(supra), given the effect of inflation elaborately discussed above, it has
outlived its utility for cases relating to later years.
National Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Farzana Ors. on 14 July, 2009
27. Coming to the facts of the present case, PW1 Parshuram
@ Parshu Ram in his affidavit Ex.PW1/A has stated that the
deceased Master Gopal was aged around 7 years at the time of
accident and he was a student of second standard at Gyan Model
Public School, Gali No.4, Chauhan Patti, Delhi-94. Copy of the ration
card issued in name of Sh. Surender Singh, father of the deceased,
has also been filed on record by PW1 as Ex.PW1/8 (colly). The age
of deceased in this document is shown as 1 year and date of
issuance of this ration card is given as 15.08.2011. No other
documents, like copy of his aadhar card, school certificate of above
school, date of birth certificate etc., in support of age of the
deceased have been filed on record by PW1. Therefore, going by
Ex.PW1/8, the age of the deceased at the time of accident comes to
around 5 years, 11 months and 29 days, i.e. just below 6 years.
Hence, as per the law laid down in the case of Chetan Malhotra
MACP Nos.
Section 48 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009
Noticeably, in Sarla Verma (supra) the Supreme Court specified the
multiplier of 18 for cases where the deceased was in the age-group of 15
years‟ to 20 years‟ old.
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Pranay Sethi Son Of Late Prashant Sethi ... on 20 April, 2011
(ii) COMPENSATION UNDER NON-PECUNIARY HEADS
As already discussed above that the compensation to be
granted in case of a death arising from a road accident under the
non-pecuniary heads of loss of estate, loss of consortium, funeral
expenses etc. came for active consideration before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the above Constitution Bench judgment in the
case of Pranay Sethi (Supra). Since the petitioners are parents and
MACP Nos. 02/17, 03/17 and 04/17 Page No. 19 of 34
minor son of the deceased, in terms of the propositions laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case, the petitioners are not
entitled to any compensation towards loss of consortium and are
held entitled only to amounts of Rs.15,000/- each under the heads of
loss of estate and funeral expenses. Even no compensation can be
awarded to them under any other head like loss of love and affection
etc. in view of the law laid down in the above judgment and also
followed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its various judgments
including the judgment in the case of Bajaj Allianz General Ins.
Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Dharambir Singh & Ors on 18 July, 2018
However, the above oral and documentary evidence led
on record by the petitioner is not found to be satisfactory to prove the
factum of employment of the deceased Rajni Devi in Delhi or her
earnings being Rs.11,500/- from the said job. Admittedly, no other
record in the form of any salary or wages payment register etc. in
respect of the deceased has been produced before this tribunal and
MACP Nos. 02/17, 03/17 and 04/17 Page No. 11 of 34
the documentary evidence led on record rather suggests that the
deceased was not residing in Delhi and was residing in their native
village itself in Etawha, U.P. as in almost all the documents like copy
of their ration card Ex.PW1/8, her election identity card Ex.PW1/6 as
well as certified copies of documents constituting record of the
above criminal case Ex.PW1/11 to Ex.PW1/19, the deceased is
shown to be a resident of Etawha, U.P. Again as per PW1, she was
working as a cook, but as per PW3 and the above certificate
Ex.PW1/7, she was working as a helper only. There is also no
document on record to show her cooking skills or even her residence
in Delhi at the time of accident. Hence, her salary is to be taken only
as per the minimum wages prevailing in the State of U.P. at the time
of accident and in view of the judgment dated 18.07.2018 of the
Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of TATA AIG General
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Priyanka & Ors.; Dharambir Singh & Ors.,
2018 LawSuit (Del) 3635 being relied upon by Ld. Counsel for the
petitioners, the minimum wages of skilled workers are to be applied,
which at the relevant time of accident were Rs.8,757.85 per month
(Rs.7,085/- basic wages + Rs. 1,672.85 as variable dearness
allowance).
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sou. Shalan Ashok Gaikwad Deceased ... on 6 September, 2018
Co. Ltd. Vs. Pooja &
Ors. Hence, the petitioner is also awarded a total sum of Rs.
30,000/- under the above two heads.
Bimla Devi & Ors vs Himachal Road Transport Corpn. & Ors on 15 April, 2009
In case Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road
Transport Corporation and others (2009) 13 SC 530, it has been
observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in a road accident
case, the strict principles of proof as in a criminal case are not
attracted. Relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced as
under:-
Chetan Malhotra vs Lala Ram on 13 May, 2016
In view of the law laid down in the case of Chetan
Malhotra (supra), the annual notional earnings of the deceased
Master Gopal come to Rs.50,981.87 (Rs.15,000 X 1125/331), which
are rounded off as Rs.51,000/-. (The figure '15,000/-' represents the
notional income specified in the Second Schedule requiring inflation-
correction; the figure '1125' represents the CII for the relevant
financial year in which the cause of action arose/accident occurred
and the figure of '331' represents the CII for the base year 1997-78
as per the above judgment). After deducting 1/3rd of the above
earnings towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and
after applying the multiplier of 10, the pecuniary loss to estate is
computed as Rs.3,40,000/- (Rs.51,000/- X 2/3 X 10) and after
adding a similar amount towards composite non-pecuniary damages,
the total compensation to which the petitioner of this claim petition is
entitled comes to Rs.6,80,000/- (Rs.3,40,000/- + Rs.3,40,000/-) and
this amount is accordingly awarded to the petitioner.