Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.18 seconds)
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. ... vs Neelam @ Singara @ Shivani & Ors on 9 October, 2012 cites

T. O. Anthony vs Karvarnan And Others on 1 February, 2008

4. The learned counsel for the Claimants states that the deceased was a young person and thus addition of 50% was rightly made by the Claims Tribunal. It is urged that the Claims Tribunal fell into error in making a deduction of 10% on account of alleged contributory negligence. It is stated that the deceased Saroj was not driving the two-wheeler. It is urged that there was no negligence on the part of the two wheeler driver and even if there was any negligence, it was not a case of a contributory negligence. Reliance is placed on T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan & Ors., (2008) 3 SCC 748.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 425 - K G Balakrishnan - Full Document

Shri Ravinder Kumar Sharma vs The State Of Assam And Ors on 14 September, 1999

7. I am conscious of the fact that the Respondent (Claimant) has not filed any Cross-Objection. The Respondent, however, is entitled to urge any ground in order to resist an Appeal in terms of Order XLI Rule 22 CPC without filing any cross objection. A reference may also be made to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Ravinder Kumar Sharma v. State of Assam & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 3571. Thus, the Claims Tribunal erred in making deduction of 10% on account of the alleged contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 190 - M J Rao - Full Document

Santosh Devi vs National Insurance Co.Ltd.& Ors on 23 April, 2012

9. Admittedly, there was no evidence with regard to the deceased's future prospects. In the circumstances, the Claims Tribunal was not justified in making addition of 50%. Rather, only an addition of 30% should have been made towards inflation on the basis of the Supreme Court judgment in Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., 2012 (4) SCALE 559. The loss of dependency thus comes to `7,17,277/- (`4057/- + 30% x 12 x 2/3 x 17).
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 2663 - G S Singhvi - Full Document
1