Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.35 seconds)
Kajal vs Jagdish Chand on 5 February, 2020 cites

Gobald Motor Service Ltd. & Another vs R. M. K. Veluswami & Others on 14 April, 1961

22. The attendant charges have been awarded by the High Court @ Rs.2,500/­ per month for 44 years, which works out to Rs.13,20,000/­. Unfortunately, this system is not a proper system. Multiplier system is used to balance out various factors. When compensation is awarded in lump sum, various factors are taken into consideration. When compensation is paid in lump sum, this Court has always followed the multiplier system. The multiplier system should be followed not only for determining the compensation on account of loss of income but also for determining the attendant charges etc. This system was recognised by this Court in Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v. R.M.K. Veluswami9. The multiplier system factors in the inflation rate, the rate of interest payable on the lump sum 9 AIR 1962 SC 1 13 award, the longevity of the claimant, and also other issues such as the uncertainties of life. Out of all the various alternative methods, the multiplier method has been recognised as the most realistic and reasonable method. It ensures better justice between the parties and thus results in award of ‘just compensation’ within the meaning of the Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 641 - Full Document

Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Subhagwanti & Others(With Connected ... on 24 February, 1966

24. This Court has reaffirmed the multiplier method in various cases like Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwati 10 1971 AC 115 14 and Ors.11, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. v. Trilok Chandra and Ors.12, Sandeep Khanduja v. Atul Dande and Ors.13. This Court has also recognised that Schedule II of the Act can be used as a guide for the multiplier to be applied in each case. Keeping the claimant’s age in mind, the multiplier in this case should be 18 as opposed to 44 taken by the High Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 145 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Sandeep Khanuja vs Atul Dande & Anr on 2 February, 2017

24. This Court has reaffirmed the multiplier method in various cases like Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwati 10 1971 AC 115 14 and Ors.11, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. v. Trilok Chandra and Ors.12, Sandeep Khanduja v. Atul Dande and Ors.13. This Court has also recognised that Schedule II of the Act can be used as a guide for the multiplier to be applied in each case. Keeping the claimant’s age in mind, the multiplier in this case should be 18 as opposed to 44 taken by the High Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 168 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Shri Mallikarjun vs The Divisional Manager on 16 September, 2009

In Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Company Limited and Ors.14, this Court while dealing with the issue of award under this head held that it should be at least Rs.6,00,000/­, if the disability is more than 90%. As far as the present case is concerned, in addition to the 100% physical disability the young girl is suffering from severe incontinence, she is suffering from severe hysteria and above all she is left with a brain of a nine month old child. This is a case where departure has to be made 14 2013 (10) SCALE 668 16 from the normal rule and the pain and suffering suffered by this child is such that no amount of compensation can compensate.
Karnataka High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 65 - A S Bopanna - Full Document

General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C vs Susamma Thomas on 6 January, 1993

30. The tribunal while awarding the compensation had stated that the amount payable to the share of Kajal would be kept in a Fixed Deposit till she attains the age of 18 years. The High Court while enhancing the amount of compensation has directed that the enhanced amount be paid to the appellant within 45 days. This is totally contrary to the guidelines laid down by this Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas and Ors.15, wherein it has been held clearly that the amount payable to the minors should not be normally released. The guidelines in this case were as follows :
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 4294 - G N Ray - Full Document
1   2 Next