Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.48 seconds)
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Smti Malina Basumatary And 2 Ors on 15 November, 2019 cites

National Insurance Company Ltd vs Pranay Sethi Son Of Late Prashant Sethi ... on 20 April, 2011

In the case of National Insurance Company Pvt. Limited vs Pranay Sethi and Ors., reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the Apex Court has held that when the deceased was holding a permanent job, 50 % of the income should be calculated towards future prospects. However, if the deceased was self employed or on a fixed salary and was below 40 years, an addition of 40 % of the established income should be calculated. In the present case, the deceased being below 40 years and being employed on a fixed salary, the learned Tribunal erred in calculating 50 % of the income of the deceased for future prospects. The future prospects would have to be considered at the rate of 40 % of the income of the deceased.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 10133 - K Kannan - Full Document

Nasima Begum vs Keramat Ali And 3 Ors on 9 April, 2019

In the case Khusboo Chirania @ Kanta Chirania v. Kamal Kumar Sovasaria, reported in 2018 0 Supreme (Gau) 966 and in the case of Nasima Begum v. Keramat Ali, reported in 2019 0 Supreme (Gau) 507, this Court has stated no interest on future prospects should be given. Though no reason has been enunciated in the above judgments, the reason for the same seems to be due to the fact that future prospects is relatable to an income to be received in the future and as such, there could not be any loss to the claimant for the payment of future prospects, at the time the deceased met with the accident. The reason for awarding interest on the compensation amount, minus the future prospects is due to the fact that though the loss of dependency starts from the date of the accident and the compensation amount is computed on the date of the Award of the Tribunal, interest is awarded to compensate the loss of money value on account of lapse of time, such as time taken for the legal proceedings and for the denial of right to utilize the money when due. However, future prospects is with regard to the probable income to be received in the future and as such there is no requirement to compensate the claimant by way of future interest, for the loss that is to occur in the future, as the future is yet to happen. Further, future prospects is given for the entire future and as such, the claimant is getting compensation in a lumpsum under future prospects prior to the occurrence of future event. Thus, with regard to future prospects, this Court is also of the view that there cannot be any interest on future prospects, as the same relates to an income to be given in the future.
Gauhati High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 13 - N Sailo - Full Document

Sanjay Kumar vs Ashok Kumar & Anr on 24 January, 2014

In the case of Sanjay Kumar vs Ashok Kumar, reported in (2014) 5 SCC 330, the Apex Court has held that the Tribunals and Courts need not accept the claim of the claimants without supporting materials. In the present case, the learned Tribunal did not accept the evidence adduced by the claimant (PW-1) and the contractor (PW-3), which was to the effect that the deceased worked as the Manager for the class-I(A) contractor (PW-3) on a salary of Rs. 25,000/- per month.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 159 - V G Gowda - Full Document

K. Suresh vs New India Assurance Co.Ltd & Anr on 19 October, 2012

In the case of K. Suresh V. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., reported in (2012) 12 SCC 274, the Apex Court has held that considerations in realm of speculation or fancy is to be avoided though some guesswork or conjecture to a limited extent is inevitable in the absence of a precise formula to determine quantum of compensation in cases of personal injuries.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 236 - D Misra - Full Document

State Of Haryana And Another vs Jasbir Kaur & Ors on 5 August, 2003

In the case of State of Haryana vs. Jasbir Kaur, reported in (2003) 7 SCC 484 and in the case of The Divisional Controller, Karnataka SRTC vs. Mahadeva Shetty & Another, reported in (2003) 7 SCC 197, the Apex Court has held that the amount of compensation should be just and reasonable, it should neither be a bonanza nor a source of profit, but at the same time it should not be a pittance. Having regard to the above judgments of the Apex Court, this Court is of the view that the income of the deceased has to be determined in an objective manner, though some guesswork may be permissible to a limited extent. In the present case, the claim that the deceased was earning Rs. 25,000/- per month appears to be exorbitant, given the fact that the deceased was apparently 19-21 years old at the time of his death. There is no evidence to show his educational qualification either, which would warrant the appointment of the deceased as a Manager of a successful contractor. Further, the contractor should have Page No.# 7/8 produced his annual income tax returns and acknowledgments issued by the Income Tax Deptt. to prove that the deceased was employed by him. The fact that the deceased was employed by him could have been proved by documents showing Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) from the contractors payment of the salary to the deceased. However, the same have not been produced by the claimant or the contractor. This Court is accordingly of the view that the claim of the claimant that the deceased was earning Rs. 25,000/- p.m. as Manager is not backed up/proved by supporting materials and evidence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 619 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1