Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.32 seconds)Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Raj Kumar vs Ajay Kumar & Anr on 18 October, 2010
26. Hon'ble Apex Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar 2011(1) SCC 343,
mandated multiplier method for calculation of compensation for future loss of
earning capacity which is as follows:
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Ram Dayal & Anr vs Ram Nibash & Ors (Icici Lombard Ins Co ... on 21 January, 2016
25. Future prospects: Counsel for petitioner has argued that future prospects
should be granted to petitioner since he is a young man and his future earnings
have been curtained due to this accident. Counsel for petitioner has also argued
that petitioner was a highly qualified person and was also active in extra
curricular activities. In this regard, she has relied upon educational certificates
and extra curricular activities certificates of petitioner which are collectively
Ex. PW1/15. Counsel for Insurance Company has argued that is nothing on
record to show that petitioner was permanent employee of M/s STI Apparel
Automation Pvt. Ltd. as he was offered job in March, 2012 on probation for six
months, but petitioner has not filed any confirmation letter. Counsel for
Insurance Company has also argued that petitioner was offered job on a
consolidated salary of Rs.15,000/ which shows that his income was fixed. As
per documents filed on record, petitioner was not a permanent employee of M/s
STI Apparel Automotion (P) Ltd. and his salary was fixed. Hence, petitioner is
not entitled for future prospects (Judgments relied: Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas
(1994) 2 SCC 176; U.P SRTC Vs. Trilok Chandara (1996) 4 SCC 362; New
India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shanti Pathak (Smt.) & Ors. (2007) 10 SCC 1
and Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 has
held that in the case of selfemployed or those on a fixed salary, the element of
future prospects cannot be factored in. These judgments have been referred to
in the case of Ram Dayal & Anr. Vs. Ram Nibash & Ors. MAC Application
No.1012/2015 decided on 21.01.2016 (Hon'ble Delhi High Court) and held
that in the case of Minimum Wages, no future prospects can be granted).
Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. vs Jaibir Singh & Ors. on 21 December, 2009
In terms of the directions given by Hon'ble High Court in case titled "Rajesh
Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors." bearing FAO number 842/2003 decided on
08.06.2009, UCO Bank/State Bank of India has agreed to open a Special
Fixed Deposit Account for the victims of road accidents.
United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Ganga Devi & Ors on 10 May, 2016
MACT No. 3411/16 Soumya Nath Mandal Vs. Dinesh & Ors. (Pg 15 of 20)
Ltd. Vs. Ganga Devi & ors. Bearing MAC.