Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.24 seconds)Santosh Rani vs Ranjit Singh on 7 May, 2013
4. While relying upon another judgment in Santosh
Rani vs. Ranjit Singh, 2008 ACJ 1405, it has been submitted by
learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company that a
sum of ` 2,50,000/- was awarded in case of a minor of 13 years
but in the case in hand, compensation to the tune of ` 7,26,000/-
has been awarded which is contrary to the law laid down by the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court as well as against the provisions of the
Act.
Arun Kumar Agrawal & Anr vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors on 22 July, 2010
5. While challenging the compensation awarded by
learned Tribunal on account of death of Paramjeet Kaur wife of
Gurmeet Singh, it has been contended by learned counsel for the
appellant - Insurance Company that income of the household
lady has been assessed to the tune of ` 7,000/- per month which
is on a higher side and contrary to the settled proposition of law.
Infact, there is no proof of income being earned by deceased
AVIN KUMAR
2015.03.20 10:13
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
High Court of Punjab & Haryana at
Chandigarh
FAO No.2795 of 2013 [5]
Paramjeet Kaur. At the most, services rendered by house maker
can be assessed to the tune of ` 3,000/- per month. So, amount
awarded is higher, excessive, exorbitant and without any basis.
The learned Tribunal has also lost sight of the fact that the
claimant himself relied upon the judgment passed in Arun
Kumar Agarwal & another vs. National Insurance Company &
others, 2010(3) RCR (Civil) 827 (SC) in which 1/3rd income of
husband of deceased was taken as monthly income of the house-
wife and if the same ratio is applied in the present case,
compensation works out to ` 4,20,000/- i.e. 28000 X 15 as the
husband of deceased, namely, Gurmeet Singh was getting
` 7,000/- as pension as established on record. Thus,
compensation awarded by the Tribunal on account of death of
Jaspreet Singh @ Jasanpreet Singh @ Jassa as well as Paramjeet
Kaur deserves to be decreased.
Abati Bezbaruah vs Dy. Director General Geological Survey ... on 14 February, 2003
10. Undoubtedly, compensation in law is to be paid to
restore the person who has suffered damage or loss in the same
position, if the tortuous act or breach of contract had not been
committed. But, problem to assess the quantum of
compensation crops up in case of death of a minor child as
he/she cannot be expected to earn anything at the time of
unnatural death in accident. In case of a non-earning person,
under Second Schedule of the Act, his income has been
notionally estimated @ ` 15,000/- per month. No doubt, Second
Schedule is applicable to the claim petition(s) preferred under
Section 163A of the Act. The said Schedule provides a
multiplier of 15 upto the age of 15 years. In R.K. Malik‟s case
(supra), Hon‟ble Apex Court observed that even when
compensation is payable under Section 166 read with Section
168 of the Act, deviation from the structured formula as
provided in the Second Schedule is not ordinarily permissible
but except in exceptional cases. While making these
observations, Hon‟ble Supreme Court relied upon the previous
judgments in Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director General,
Geological Survey of India, (2003)3 SCC 148; United India
AVIN KUMAR
2015.03.20 10:13
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
High Court of Punjab & Haryana at
Chandigarh
FAO No.2795 of 2013 [8]
Insurance Company Ltd. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan, 2002(3) RCR
(Civil) 534; and UP State Road Transport Corp. v. Trilok
Chandra, 1996(2) RRR 718.
R.K. Malik & Anr vs Kiran Pal & Ors on 15 May, 2009
In this regard, learned counsel has referred
to observations made in case R.K. Malik & another Vs. Kiran
Pal & others, 2009(14) SCC 1.
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation ... vs Trilok Chandra & Others on 7 May, 1996
11. Adverting to the facts of the case in hand,
deceased Jaspreet Singh @ Jasanpreet Singh @ Jassa was aged
about 7 years and in view of observations referred to above,
notional income provided in the Second Schedule and multiplier
specified therein can be made the basis for pecuniary
compensation for the loss of dependency in the instant case.
Thus, taking into consideration the Second Schedule,
compensation on account of death of minor works out to `
2,25,000/- i.e. 15000 X 15. In addition to it, claimants Amarjeet
Kaur and Nanak Singh being parents of deceased Jaspreet Singh
@ Jasanpreet Singh @ Jassa are also entitled to a sum of ` 1 lac
on account of loss of love and affection plus a sum of ` 25,000/-
on account of funeral expenses i.e. totaling ` 3,50,000/- and
not a sum of ` 7,26,000/- which has been awarded by the
learned Tribunal.
Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 168 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Mrs. Patricia Jean Mahajan & Others on 13 March, 2001
10. Undoubtedly, compensation in law is to be paid to
restore the person who has suffered damage or loss in the same
position, if the tortuous act or breach of contract had not been
committed. But, problem to assess the quantum of
compensation crops up in case of death of a minor child as
he/she cannot be expected to earn anything at the time of
unnatural death in accident. In case of a non-earning person,
under Second Schedule of the Act, his income has been
notionally estimated @ ` 15,000/- per month. No doubt, Second
Schedule is applicable to the claim petition(s) preferred under
Section 163A of the Act. The said Schedule provides a
multiplier of 15 upto the age of 15 years. In R.K. Malik‟s case
(supra), Hon‟ble Apex Court observed that even when
compensation is payable under Section 166 read with Section
168 of the Act, deviation from the structured formula as
provided in the Second Schedule is not ordinarily permissible
but except in exceptional cases. While making these
observations, Hon‟ble Supreme Court relied upon the previous
judgments in Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director General,
Geological Survey of India, (2003)3 SCC 148; United India
AVIN KUMAR
2015.03.20 10:13
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
High Court of Punjab & Haryana at
Chandigarh
FAO No.2795 of 2013 [8]
Insurance Company Ltd. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan, 2002(3) RCR
(Civil) 534; and UP State Road Transport Corp. v. Trilok
Chandra, 1996(2) RRR 718.
Icici Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd vs Harjeet Kaur And Others on 29 October, 2009
13. As an offshoot of the aforesaid discussion, FAO
No.2795 of 2013 captioned as „Bharti AXA General Insurance
Company Limited vs. Amarjeet Kaur & others‟ preferred by the
Insurance Company is partly allowed and the amount of
compensation awarded by learned Tribunal to the tune of `
7,26,000/- stands decreased to a sum of ` 3,50,000/-, though,
alongwith interest @ 6% from the date of claim petition till its
actual payment.