Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.25 seconds)
Smt. Roshni Devi W/O Sh. Vijay Kumar vs Sh. Naresh Kumar on 6 February, 2008 cites

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Dhanesh Kumar And Ors. on 29 March, 1993

11 Petitioner has placed on record the records of criminal case. Ex. PW1/71 is the FIR which has been lodged at the instance of the petitioner. In the FIR rashness and negligence has been imputed on the driver of the truck, by the petitioner. Other records of the criminal case go to show that respondent no.1 was arrested in the criminal case and was challaned. This fact corroborates the version of the petitioner discussed above. Respondent no.1 has not stepped in the witness box and an adverse inference has to be drawn against him concerning rashness and negligence on his part. Reliance is placed on New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dhanesh Kumar and ors. reported in I (1994) ACC 561. (DHC). 8 12 In view of the above going discussion I have no hitch in observing that petitioner has proved the issue regarding rashness and negligence.
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 35 - Full Document

K. Jagannath Rai vs Gangarathna C. Bai And Ors. on 6 June, 2003

13 Assessment of compensation in an injury case is not easy if not difficult. The Tribunal has to award 'just' compensation. The word 'just' is very wide and enjoins a duty on the Tribunal to place the petitioner in the position in which he was before the accident. I am not burdening the judgment with the reproduction of the mandates of precedents in this regard. I deem it sufficient to make a reference to observations of Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.K. Mahajan reported in 2006 ACJ 77, observations of Karnataka High Court in K. Jagannath Rao Vs. Gangarathna C. Bai and others reported in 2004 ACJ 982, (Karnataka) and Hon'ble Supreme Court in Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadeva Shetty and another, III 2003 ACC 57 (SC); AIR 2003 SC 4172, which are worth reading and I shall be guided by the principles in 9 assessment of compensation. I shall also be guided by other settled practices and will try to strike a balance between two principles of not awarding of meager compensation and excessive compensation i.e. I shall keep my assessment within the above mentioned brackets i.e. above than meagre and less than excess.
Karnataka High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 31 - K Ramanna - Full Document

Balwanti Devi Widow Of Late Shri Zile ... vs Surjit Singh S/O. Shri Gugan Singh And ... on 24 February, 2004

Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur reported in 2005 ACJ 942 titled as Balwanti Devi and others Vs. Surjit Singh and others. 24 Accident took place on 19.12.2004. Minimum wages of a skilled worker as on 19.12.2004 were Rs. 3,318.90 ps. (say Rs. 3,400/-). Total loss of earning sustained by the injured during the period of three years comes to Rs. 1,22,400/- (3,400 x 12 x 3 = 1,22,400) (say Rs. 1,23,000/-).
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 27 - M B Lokur - Full Document

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Vijay Kumar Mittal And Ors. on 11 May, 2007

Pain and sufferings 31 Counsel for the petitioner has argued vehemently that petitioner should be paid a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- under the head of non-pecuniary damages as was so done by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Nandrajog in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Vijay Kumar Mittal and others reported in 2007 (3) T.A.C. 397 (Del.). Counsel Ms. Dimple Arora for the respondents has submitted that the case relied upon is distinguishable as there was an amputation of right leg below the knee in that case. I have considered the submissions made by respondents side. I find force in the argument of Ms. 24 Dimple Arora for the reason that there was amputation of right leg below knee in the case placed reliance upon by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner. In the present case I have already detailed about the condition of the petitioner. She appeared in the court on a wheel chair during the course of trial and even during the course of arguments. There were many scars on her legs having been sustained on account of numerous operations carried on her. Assertion of Ld. Counsel for the petitioner to the effect that petitioner has been operated upon on numerous occasions has not been seriously disputed and could not have been disputed. In Ex. PW1/X Smt. Roshni Devi has stated that rods have been inserted in her legs and she has been operated on five occasions. In the circumstances there is no hitch in observing that petitioner must have undergone enormous pain and sufferings. Making a balance between the respective versions put forth and considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it expedient to award a sum of Rs. 90,000/- under the head of pain and sufferings.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 306 - P Nandrajog - Full Document
1   2 Next