Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.25 seconds)
Smt. Kamlesh Sharma And Others vs United India Insurance. Co. Ltd. And ... on 3 March, 2022 cites

Anita Sharma vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. on 8 December, 2020

13. This Court finds that the accident occurred on 26.7.2002 causing death of Satya Deo Sharma who was 46 years of age at the time of accident. The Tribunal has assessed his income to be Rs.75,000/- per year which according to this Court, in the year of accident, would be at least Rs.90,000/- on the basis of evidence produced before the Tribunal both oral and documentary. The Tribunal has committe3de error in not considering income tax return and their mean has to be calculated. We are fortified in our view by the decision in Anita Sharma Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited (2021) 1SCC 171.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 126 - S Kant - Full Document

Smt. Hansaguri Prafulchandra Ladhani ... vs The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. And ... on 4 October, 2006

In view of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Smt. Hansaguri P. Ladhani v/s The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2007(2) GLH 291, total amount of interest, accrued on the principal amount of compensation is to be apportioned on financial year to financial year basis and if the interest payable to claimant for any financial year exceeds Rs.50,000/-, insurance company/owner is/are entitled to deduct appropriate amount under the head of 'Tax Deducted at Source' as provided u/s 194A (3) (ix) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and if the amount of interest does not exceeds Rs.50,000/- in any financial year, registry of this Tribunal is directed to allow the claimant to withdraw the amount without producing the certificate from the concerned Income- Tax Authority.
Gujarat High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 288 - M S Shah - Full Document

Khenyei vs New India Assurnace Co.Ltd.& Ors on 7 May, 2015

12. The latest decision of the Apex Court in Khenyei (Supra) has laid down one further aspect about considering the negligence more particularly composite/contributory negligence. The deceased or the person concerned should be shown to have contributed either to the accident and the impact of accident upon the victim could have been minimised if he had taken care. In this case the deceased was not the author or the co-author of the accident. On facts, the deceased was plying the vehicle. The deceased was not by bus and then by tanker. The Tribunal has held non joinder of bus for deduction of compensation, 70% could not be deducted from compensation payable by deceased. We uphold the decision as far as negligence of all the three driver is concerned, but hold that the insurance company has to be saddled with 95% of liability with right to recover the finding of facts as far as negligence apportioned by the Tribunal is not disturbed as the facts goes to show that the driver of the bus did not stepped into the witness box. The Tribunal or the insurance company would have examined the driver by filing an application for procuring his presence before the Tribunal which was not done. We hold the bus driver to be 70% negligent and the driver of the tanker to be 25% negligent. Negligent of deceased has decided by Tribunal to be 5% is maintained in the facts of this case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 600 - A Mishra - Full Document

T. O. Anthony vs Karvarnan And Others on 1 February, 2008

14. There is a difference between contributory and composite negligence. In the case of contributory negligence, a person who has himself contributed to the extent cannot claim compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident to the extent of his own negligence;whereas in the case of composite negligence, a person who has suffered has not contributed to the accident but the outcome of combination of negligence of two or more other persons. This Court in T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan & Ors. [2008 (3) SCC 748] has held that in case of contributory negligence, injured need not establish the extent of responsibility of each wrong doer separately, nor is it necessary for the court to determine the extent of liability of each wrong doer separately. It is only in the case of contributory negligence that the injured himself has contributed by his negligence in the accident. Extent of his negligence is required to be determined as damages recoverable by him in respect of the injuries have to be reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder :
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 425 - K G Balakrishnan - Full Document
1