Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.35 seconds)Nagappa vs Gurudayal Singh & Ors on 3 December, 2002
In this regard, we may refer with profit the decision of this Court
in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and others[5] wherein the observations of
Lord Denning M.R. in Lim Poh Choo v. Camden and Islington Area Health
Authority[6] were quoted with approval. They read thus: -
C. K. Subramonia Iyer & Ors vs T. Kunhikuttan Nair And 6 Ors on 8 October, 1969
The
Bench referred to the decisions in C.K. Subramania Iyer (supra), R.D.
Hattangadi (supra) and Baker v. Willoughby[20] and expressed the view that
it is obligatory on the part of the court or the tribunal to assess the
damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or
fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability
and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be
compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he
suffered as a result of such injury. He is to be compensated for his
inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal
amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his
inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned.
Concord Of India Insurance Co Ltd vs Nirmala Devi And Ors on 16 April, 1979
In Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi[10] this Court
has expressed thus: -
Mrs. Helen C. Rebello & Ors vs Maharashtra State Road Transport ... on 18 September, 1998
In Mrs. Helen C. Rebello and others v. Maharashtra State Road
Transport Corpn. and another[11], while dealing with concept of “just
compensation”, it has been ruled that the word ‘just’, as its nomenclature,
denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness having large peripheral
field. The largeness is, of course, not arbitrary; it is restricted by the
conscience which is fair, reasonable and equitable, if it exceeds; it is
termed as unfair, unreasonable, unequitable, not just. The field of wider
discretion of the tribunal has to be within the said limitations.
State Of Haryana And Another vs Jasbir Kaur & Ors on 5 August, 2003
It is
required to make an award determining the amount of compensation which in
turn appears to be “just and reasonable”, for compensation for loss of
limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales as has been stated in
“State of Haryana and another v. Jasbir Kaur and others”[12].
B.Kothandapani vs Tamil Nadu State Transport Corp.Ltd on 12 May, 2011
As
has been stated earlier, the said decision has been considered in B.
Kothandapani (supra) and is not accepted, and this Court has expressed the
view that grant of compensation towards permanent disability is
permissible. Regard been had to the totality of the facts and
circumstances, we are inclined to think that compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-
should be granted towards permanent disability and Rs.2,00,000/- towards
pain and suffering. We have so held as the injury is of serious nature and
under the heading of non-pecuniary damages compensation is awardable under
the headings of pain and suffering and damages for loss of amenities of
life on account of injury.
Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd vs Ahmed Thambi on 3 August, 2006
28. The High Court has maintained the award in respect of transport
charges, extra nourishment, medical expenses and, accordingly, they are
maintained. It has enhanced the award from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.2,50,000 on
the head of pain and suffering, but has deleted the amount awarded on
permanent disability from the total compensation awarded by the tribunal by
relying on the decision in Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd. (supra).
Ramesh Chandra vs Randhir Singh And Ors.(Vice Versa) on 3 May, 1990
In our considered
opinion, total deletion is absolutely unjustified and, in fact, runs
counter to the principles laid down by this Court in Ramesh Chandra (supra)
and B. Kothandapani (supra).
Mr. R.D. Hattangadi vs M/S Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 6 January, 1995
In the case of R.D. Hattangadi (supra) this
Court has granted compensation under two heads, namely, “pain and
suffering” and “loss of amenities of life”. Quite apart from that
compensation was granted towards future earnings.