Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.29 seconds)The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923
Pratap Narain Singh Deo vs Srinivas Sabata And Anr on 4 December, 1975
iv) Pratap Narain Singh Deo versus Srinivas Sabata
and Anr.1
3a. He further raised other issues that the learned Tribunal Judge
wrongly assessed the income of the appellant as Rs. 3,000/- in place of
Rs. 4,000/-. The learned Court also did not allow any future prospects or
non-pecuniary damages. If the learned Tribunal would have considered
compensation on these aforesaid heads of future prospects 40% of the
actual income and non-pecuniary damages to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/=
1
1976 AIR 222, 1976 SCR (2) 872.
Laxmi Devi & Others vs Mohammad Tabbar & Another on 25 March, 2008
6. Upon perusal of the judgment reported in Laxmi Devi & Others
vs. Mohammad Tabbar & Another3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
even an unskilled labour can earn Rs. 100/- per day but in the present
case, the accident was occurred in year 2007. So, income of claimant
considered by the Learned Tribunal is perfectly correct to the tune of Rs.
3,000/- per month. This Court does not find any error in considering the
notional income of the claimant at the time of accident.
Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009
In view of observation
made in Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and
3
2008 (2) T.A.C. 394 (SC)
9
Another4 and later a judgement passed by a Larger Bench of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court affirming the manner of selection of multiplier in National
Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others5 by indicating therein that
the selection of multiplier as declared correctly as indicated in the
paragraph in Sarla Verma's case as, inter alia, as follows: -
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Pranay Sethi And Others on 22 June, 2022
In view of observation
made in Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and
3
2008 (2) T.A.C. 394 (SC)
9
Another4 and later a judgement passed by a Larger Bench of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court affirming the manner of selection of multiplier in National
Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others5 by indicating therein that
the selection of multiplier as declared correctly as indicated in the
paragraph in Sarla Verma's case as, inter alia, as follows: -
Raj Kumar Singh & Anr vs Ajay Kumar Singh & Ors on 7 January, 2016
In Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Ors.6, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has given guideline for calculation of actual functional
disability of the body and nor could it be assumed in result in
corresponding of loss of earning capacity in future. The claim of the
claimant was that at the time of accident, he was a helper-cum- driver of a
truck but fails to prove the same by way of evidence either oral or
documentary evidence. He even fails to produce driving license. Under the
said facts, the learned Tribunal has assessed his disability as permanent
and also assessed the total loss of earning capacity of 80% (Ext. 7). There
is no need to any assistance or escort to the appellant/claimant and also
6
(2011) 1 SCC 343, (2011) (1) TAC 785.
1