Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.20 seconds)Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Smt Sarla Dixit & Anr vs Balwant Yadav & Ors on 29 February, 1996
11. The deceased was aged about 42 years. If the depositions of the
witnesses examined on behalf of the claimants were to be believed and we
see no reason as to why they should not be, his future prospect also could
not have been ignored for the purpose of determining the annual income.
7
For the said purpose, immediate future prospect would be a relevant factor.
It is possible in a given case, where the chance of promotion is remote or the
deceased was at the end of his carrier, his future prospect would be kept out
of consideration. But, evidently, he was to be promoted to the post of
Executive Engineer. If he was to be so promoted, his income would have
been around 25,000/- The said factor, therefore, was required to be
considered. [See General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport
Corporation, Trivendrum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) & Ors. [(1994) 2 SCC
186] and Smt. Sarla Dixit & Anr. v. Balwant Yadav & Ors. [(1996) 3 SCC
179].
Nagappa vs Gurudayal Singh & Ors on 3 December, 2002
In Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh & Ors. [(2003) 2 SCC 274], this
Court has held as under :
Usha Rajkhowa & Ors vs M/S Paramout Industries & Ors on 17 February, 2009
16. So for as the issue of "contributory negligence" is concerned, we may
notice that the tribunal has deducted 1/3rd from the total compensation on the
ground that deceased had contributed to the accident. The same, we find, has
been upheld by the High Court. This court in Usha Rajkhowa and Ors. v.
Paramount Industries and Ors. [Civil Appeal No.1088 of 2009 (arising out of
SLP (C) No.16647 of 2008)] discussed the issue of contributory negligence
noticing, inter alia, earlier decisions on the same topic. It was held that :
Pramodkumar Rasikbhai Jhaveri vs Karmasey Kunvargi Tak & Ors on 5 August, 2002
"10. The question of contributory negligence on
the part of the driver in case of collision was
considered by this Court in Pramodkumar
Rasikbhai Jhaveri v. Karmasey Kunvargi Tak and
Ors. reported in (2002) 6 SCC 455. That was also a
case of collusion in between a Car and a truck. It
was observed in Para 8:
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Indira Srivastava & Ors on 12 December, 2007
10. The fact that the deceased was getting a salary of Rs.17,431/- is not in
dispute. Apart from the dearness allowance, if other allowances were
payable which were beneficial to the entire family, the same should have
been taken into consideration for the purpose of computation of the annual
income. It was so held in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Indira
Srivastava & Ors. [(2008) 2 SCC 763].
Herdeo Kaur And Ors vs Rajasthan State Transport Corporation ... on 13 March, 1992
20. The practice of deduction for lump sum payments from the amount of
compensation awarded in Motor Accident cases by the tribunal have been
disapproved by this court in several other decisions. [(See Hardeo Kaur v.
Rajasthan State Transport Corporation [(1992) 2 SCC 567)]; Renu Bala
Kalitha v. Dhiren Chakravatty [(1998) 8 SCC 363]; and Urmilla Pandey v.
Khalil Ahmad [(1994) 4 SCC 207].
Urmilla Pandey vs Khalil Ahmad on 10 May, 1994
20. The practice of deduction for lump sum payments from the amount of
compensation awarded in Motor Accident cases by the tribunal have been
disapproved by this court in several other decisions. [(See Hardeo Kaur v.
Rajasthan State Transport Corporation [(1992) 2 SCC 567)]; Renu Bala
Kalitha v. Dhiren Chakravatty [(1998) 8 SCC 363]; and Urmilla Pandey v.
Khalil Ahmad [(1994) 4 SCC 207].