Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.43 seconds)Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009
(vi) In MACT No. 356446/16 as per claim suit,
the age of mother of deceased Amit was 40 years at the time
of filing of suit, accordingly, in terms of Sarla Verma (Smt.) &
Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC
MACT No. 356452/16 (Old Suit No. 322/12)
MACT No. 356446/16 (Old Suit No. 323/12) Page No. 20 of 28
Naseeb Singh & ors. vs. Atul Kumar & ors.
Ishwar Singh & anr. vs. Atul Kumar & ors.
Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. vs Jaibir Singh & Ors. on 21 December, 2009
(v) In terms of clause 31 & 32 of the FAO No.
842/03 Rajesh Tyagi & others Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. order
dated December 12, 2014, copy of this award be sent to the
concerned court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and Secretary
DLSA, Central District for information and necessary action.
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation ... vs Trilok Chandra & Others on 7 May, 1996
It is true that in Mohd.
Ameeruddin (supra 2) and P.S. Somanathan
(supra 3) and National Insurance Company
Ltd. v. Azad Singh (supra 5), the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court applied the multiplier
according to the age of the deceased, yet in
view of Trilok Chandra (supra) and Shanti
Pathak (supra) decided by the three Judges
of the Supreme Court, the judgment in Mohd.
Ameeruddin (supra 2), P.S. Somanathan
(supra 3) and Azad Singh (supra 5) cannot be
taken as a precedent for selection of the
multiplier.
General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C vs Susamma Thomas on 6 January, 1993
As an example the multiplier taken
in various cases such as in Susamma
Thomas (supra), U.P. SRTC v. Trilok
Chandara, (1996) 4 SCC 362 as clarified in
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie,
(2005) 10 SCC 720 and the multiplier as
mentioned in Second Schedule to the Motor
Vehicles Act were compared and it was held
that the multiplier as per Column No.4 in the
said table was appropriate for application.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Charlie And Anr on 29 March, 2005
"6. We have given anxious
consideration to these contentions and
are of the opinion that the same are
devoid of any merits. Considering the
law laid down in New India Assurance
Co. Ltd. v. Charlie, AIR 2005 SC 2157, it
is clear that the. Admittedly, the age of
the father choice of multiplier is
determined by the age of the deceased
or claimants whichever is higher was 55
years. The question of mother's age
never cropped up because that was not
the contention raised even before the
Trial Court or before us. Taking the age
to be 55 years, in our opinion, the courts
below have not committed any illegality
in applying the multiplier of 8 since the
father was running 56th year of his life."
New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Smt. Shanti Pathak And Ors on 10 July, 2007
It is true that in Mohd.
Ameeruddin (supra 2) and P.S. Somanathan
(supra 3) and National Insurance Company
Ltd. v. Azad Singh (supra 5), the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court applied the multiplier
according to the age of the deceased, yet in
view of Trilok Chandra (supra) and Shanti
Pathak (supra) decided by the three Judges
of the Supreme Court, the judgment in Mohd.
Ameeruddin (supra 2), P.S. Somanathan
(supra 3) and Azad Singh (supra 5) cannot be
taken as a precedent for selection of the
multiplier.
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Shyam Singh & Ors on 4 July, 2011
In the latest judgment of the Supreme Court
in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Shyam
Singh & Ors., (2011) 7 SCC 65, decided on
04.07.2011, the Supreme Court referred to
Ramesh Singh & Anr. v. Satbir Singh & Anr.,
(2008) 2 SCC 667 and held that the multiplier
as per the age of the deceased or the
claimant whichever is higher would be
MACT No. 356452/16 (Old Suit No. 322/12)
MACT No. 356446/16 (Old Suit No. 323/12) Page No. 18 of 28
Naseeb Singh & ors. vs. Atul Kumar & ors.
Ishwar Singh & anr. vs. Atul Kumar & ors.
Ramesh Singh & Anr vs Satbir Singh & Anr on 21 January, 2008
In our view, the dictum laid down in
Ramesh Singh (supra) is applicable to the
present case on all fours.