Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.23 seconds)
Reliance General Insurance Company ... vs Gorige Bheemaiah on 21 February, 2022 cites

Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009

13. Regarding the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal after taking into consideration of the judgments referred in the order has rightly taken the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. After deducting one-third towards personal expenses, estimated the contribution of the deceased to the family at Rs.24,000/- (Rs.36,000 x 1/3). However, the Tribunal at para 16 of the judgment observed that in the inquest report and post mortem report, the aged of the deceased is mentioned as approximately 40 years, but, however, considered that the deceased might be in the age group of 41 to 45 years. By applying the multiplier '14', assessed the loss of dependency at Rs.3,36,000/- (Rs.24,000/- x 14). But, according to the judgment of the Apex Court in SARLA VARMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT 4 CORPORATION , for the person aged 40 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable would be '15'. The Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier '15', instead of '14'. If the same is applied, 4 2009(6) SCC 121 10 it comes to Rs.3,60,000/- (Rs.24,000/- x 15).
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 20141 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi on 31 October, 2017

Subsequently, according to the judgment of the Apex court in NATIONAL 5 INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. PRANAY SETHI , the claimants, who are children of the deceased Gorige Buggamma, are entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.1,5000/- towards funeral expenses and the aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years as per the above said judgment. If the same is calculated, it comes to Rs.33,000/- (Rs.15,000/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.3,000/-). Thus, the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.3,99,000/- (Rs.3,60,000/- plus Rs.33,000/-). At this stage, the contention of learned counsel for the insurance company is that the claimants have claimed an amount of Rs.3 lakhs towards compensation and the Tribunal has awarded the said amount and now the claimants are not entitled for the excess compensation now granted which has not been claimed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 9815 - D Misra - Full Document

Agnuru Jaya Ramulu Alias Jaya Ramudu, ... vs Mohammed Afzal Miyan And Anr. on 30 September, 2004

In support of the said contention, the learned counsel has relied on the judgments of this court in MOHD. RASHEED v. SUSHEELA AGARWAL AND ANR1 and AGNURU JAYA RAMULU v. MOHD. AFZAL MIYAN2, wherein it was held that if the vehicle is carrying more than its seating capacity and if the claimants failed to produce scene of offence panchanama prepared by the police, the contributory negligence has to be taken into 1 2006 ACJ 678 2 2006 ACJ 855 4 consideration. But in the instant case, the Tribunal did not take the contributory negligence into consideration and fasten the liability solely on the driver of the auto. He further contends that the Tribunal, having observed that the insured/owner of the auto violated the terms and conditions of the policy, ought to have exonerated the insurance company or at least it could have invoked the principle of pay and recover.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 4 - Cited by 28 - Full Document
1   2 Next