Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.34 seconds)
Smt. Usha Devi ( Mother Of Deceased) vs B. S. E. S. Yamuna Power Ltd on 7 February, 2014 cites

Smt. Asha Devi vs B.S.E.B. And Ors. on 12 February, 2002

28. In the case at hand deceased Sonu was 10 years old entitled to complete his whole life with all prospects in future it is contended by learned counsel for the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs are poor persons and could not have compensation as they could not arrange the court fees to be paid for the suit to be file for more than Rs. 4 Lakh. It is also established that the deceased was unemployed and not earning but the prospects of his future cannot be ruled out. The plaintiff No. 1 and 2 claimed that they are unemployed and have no earnings. The claim of compensation is not controverted nor even a suggestion was put to the Pws that the compensation claimed was excessive. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no doubt that the deceased at least would have earned Rs. 4,00,000/­ (Four lakh) through out his life or even more keeping in view the minimum wages prevalent at this time. Therefore, examining the facts of this case, the assessment of claim for damages of Rs. 4 lakh as prayed seems to be just and reasonable and cannot be CS No. 72/14 22 of 23 Usha Devi Vs. B. S. E. S. considered to be excessive by any standard. This court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case where the plaintiffs are entitled to be awarded the amount of compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/­ ( Rupees four lakh) as claimed in the suit. There is no question of apportionment of the amount of the compensation awarded to the plaintiff as all the plaintiffs except 1 and 2 are minor and looked after by plaintiff No. 1 and 2. Further, this suit is filed through natural guardian i.e. plaintiff No. 1. Issue No. 2 is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant.
Patna High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 2 - R S Garg - Full Document

M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 March, 2004

In M. C. Mehta Vs. Union of India, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India even beyond the rule of strict liability held that, " Where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm is cause on any one on account of the accident in the operation of such activity, the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate those who are affected by the accident; such liability is not subject to any of the exceptions to the principle of strict liability under the rule in Rylands V. Fletcher."
Supreme Court of India Cites 40 - Cited by 1765 - H K Sema - Full Document

Union Of India vs Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors on 5 May, 2008

24. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran; 2008 (9) SCC 527 extended the principle of strict liability to cover the public utilities CS No. 72/14 18 of 23 Usha Devi Vs. B. S. E. S. which may be social utility undertaking not working for private profit. As held:­ In such a case highest degree of care is expected from private and public bodies especially when the conduct is causes physically injury or harm to persons.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 894 - M Katju - Full Document

M.P. Electricity Board vs Shail Kumari And Ors on 12 January, 2002

As held in M.P. Electricity Board Vs. Shail Kumar & Ors, 2002 SCC ( CRI ) 315, the Supreme Court considered the question of strict liability of the electricity board in a case of electrocution of a citizen and ruled that in such circumstance, irrespective of any negligence or carelessness, state electricity board was liable to pay the damages and the exception " Act of stranger" to the rule of strict liability was not attracted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 248 - Full Document
1   2 Next