Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.26 seconds)The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Gujarat State Road Transport ... vs Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai & Another on 11 May, 1987
In Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai
and another (supra), the question involved in the case as to whether
a brother of a person who dies in a motor vehicle accident can claim
compensation in a proceeding instituted before the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal. The same is also distinguishable on facts.
The Fatal Accidents Act, 1855
Smt. Kaushnuma Begum And Ors vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And Ors on 3 January, 2001
The same principle was
reiterated in Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co.
Ltd., AIR 2001 SC 485.
Lakshmiji Sugar Mills Co. Ltd., Maholi vs Banwari Lal Tandon on 13 March, 1959
22. On a bare reading of the decisions in the cases Lakshmiji
Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Maholi (supra) and M/s.J.K. Synthetics Ltd.
(supra), it is evident that the case was decided on different context.
The same are distinguishable on facts.
General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C vs Susamma Thomas on 6 January, 1993
In Kerala SRTC vs. Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC
176, the apex Court held that multiplier method is logically sound
and legally well established.
Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009
In Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, the
apex Court went in-depth into the matter and formulated the
principles for determining the compensation to bring uniformity and
consistency. The apex Court held that the multiplier to be used
should be as mentioned in column no.(4) of the table of the said
decision.
Mahant Dhangir And Another vs Madan Mohan And Others on 28 October, 1987
In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the apex
Court in the case of Panna Lal (supra) and Mahant Dhangir and
another (supra), the inescapable conclusion is that the appellate
court can enhance the compensation amount. Accordingly, the
14
substantial question of law enumerated in ground nos.2 and 3 are
answered in affirmative.
M.P. Electricity Board vs Shail Kumari And Ors on 12 January, 2002
In M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumar and others, AIR
2002 SC 551, one Jogendra Singh, a workman in a factory,
was returning from his factory on the night of 23.8.1997
riding on a bicycle. There was rain and hence the road was
partially inundated with water. The cyclist did not notice the
live wire on the road and hence he rode the vehicle over the
wire which twitched and snatched him and he was
instantaneously electrocuted. He fell down and died within
minutes. When the action was brought by his widow and
minor son, a plea was taken by the Board that one Hari
Gaikwad had taken a wire from the main supply line in
order to siphon the energy for his own use and the said act
of pilferage was done clandestinely without even the notice
of the Board and that the line got unfastened from the hook
and it fell on the road over which the cycle ridden by the
deceased slided resulting in the instantaneous electrocution.
In paragraph 7, the apex Court held as follows: