Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.25 seconds)
Page No.# 1/19 vs Page No.# 2/19 on 1 October, 2024 cites

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

6. Mr. Chauhan, learned counsel for the appellants has reiterated the grounds mentioned herein above and submits that even assessing the compensation as per Second Schedule, in case of third party fatal accidents, Page No.# 5/19 within the age group above 25 years, but not exceeding 30 years, which is fixed at Rs. 680/ per annum, ought to have been counted in thousand not as Rs.680/ only and the same has been clearly indicated in the Schedule itself. Further Mr. Chauhan submits that the deceased left behind four dependent family members, and as such in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Ors.(supra) the deduction towards personal expenses ought to have been 1/4th only. Mr. Chauhan also submits that the learned Tribunal had awarded the interest @ 7.5% per annum. But, it ought to have been @9% per annum. Mr. Chauhan also submits that future prospect has not been added by the learned Tribunal while assessing the compensation. Therefore, Mr. Chauhan has contended to allow this appeal by assessing the just compensation herein this case in the light of the law presently occupying the field. Mr. Chauhan also referred following decisions in support of his submission:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 20141 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

National Insurance Company Ltd vs Pranay Sethi And Others on 22 June, 2022

"19. These observations unequivocally clarify that compensation under Section 163A is based on strict liability, in other words the requirement of proof of negligence on the part of the driver is done away with under Section 163A. So far as reliance on Pranay Sethi (supra) by Learned Counsel for Respondents No.1 to 5 is concerned, we are in agreement with Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Bar Association of Sikkim and reliance by Learned Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 5 on the ratio is a misconception of the law. The ratio observes inter alia that the determination of income while computing compensation has to include future prospects so that the method will come within the ambit and sweep of just compensation as postulated under Section 168 of the M. V. Act. It needs no reiteration that the Supreme Court has clearly spelt out as evident from the decisions cited supra that compensation to be computed under Section 163 of the Page No.# 14/19 M. V. Act is on the structured formula as it is based on no fault liability. Once a person invokes the provisions of Section 163A, the question of inclusion of pecuniary compensation for non-tangibles and future prospects does not arise.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1946 - J R Dua - Full Document
1   2 Next