Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.19 seconds)
Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi vs Ramkaran Ramchandra Sharma & Anr on 25 September, 2014 cites

Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009

Therefore, we have no doubt in ascertaining the future income of the deceased at Rs.25,000/- p.m. i.e. Rs.3,00,000/- p.a. Further, deducting 1/3rd of the annual income towards personal expenses as per Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deo Patodi and Ors[4], and applying the appropriate multiplier of 13, keeping in mind the age of the parent of the deceased, as per the guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma case (supra), we arrive at a total loss of dependency at Rs.26,00,000/-[(Rs.3,00,000/- minus 1/3 X Rs.3,00,000/-)X 13].
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 20141 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza & Ors vs Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service on 3 October, 2013

It has been contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant Mr. Fakriddin that the offending truck hit the two-wheeler from behind. As a result, the deceased fell down and his two-wheeler was dragged by the offending truck up to a distance of about 25 feet. Thus, the finding of the Tribunal as well as the High Court towards contributory negligence of the deceased at 20% is uncalled for. Further it was contended that the High Court has reduced the compensation from Rs.18,59,200/- to Rs.11,39,200/- which is contrary to the principles laid down by this Court in Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza & Ors.  Vs.  Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service[2].
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 277 - V G Gowda - Full Document

Arvind Kumar Mishra vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr on 29 September, 2010

But uncertainties of life cannot be ignored taking relevant factors into consideration. In our opinion, it is fair and reasonable to assess his future earnings at Rs. 60,000/- per annum taking the salary and allowances payable to an Assistant Engineer in public employment as the basis….” The Tribunal and the High Court have not taken into proper consideration that the deceased was a student of medicine at the time of the accident while determining his future income. The courts below have wrongly ascertained the future income of the deceased at only Rs.18,000/- per month, which in our view is too less for a medical graduate these days. Therefore, the courts below have failed in following the principles laid down by this Court in this aspect in the above case. The deceased was a diligent and outstanding student of medicine who could have pursued his M.D. after his graduation and reached greater heights. Today, medical practice is one of the most sought after and rewarding professions. With the tremendous increase in demand for medical professionals, their salaries are also on the rise.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 1045 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Deo Patodi & Ors on 12 May, 2009

Therefore, we have no doubt in ascertaining the future income of the deceased at Rs.25,000/- p.m. i.e. Rs.3,00,000/- p.a. Further, deducting 1/3rd of the annual income towards personal expenses as per Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deo Patodi and Ors[4], and applying the appropriate multiplier of 13, keeping in mind the age of the parent of the deceased, as per the guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma case (supra), we arrive at a total loss of dependency at Rs.26,00,000/-[(Rs.3,00,000/- minus 1/3 X Rs.3,00,000/-)X 13].
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 118 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Jiju Kuruvila & Ors vs Kunjujamma Mohan & Ors on 2 July, 2013

With regard to the apportionment made by the Tribunal and the High Court, we are of the view, after considering the facts, evidence produced on record and circumstances of the case on hand, that there was no negligence on the part of the deceased. The courts below have failed to examine the facts of the case on hand with respect to the opinion of this Court given in Juju Kuruvila & Ors. v. Kunjujamma Mohan & Ors.[6] From the evidence produced on record, the two-wheeler of the deceased was dragged up to a stretch of about 20-25 feet on the road after the collision with the offending truck. We are of the considered view, that to be able to create this kind of enormous effect on the two-wheeler of the deceased, the offending truck must have been travelling at a fairly high speed and that its driver did not have sufficient control over his vehicle. The driver of the offending truck should have been aware that he was driving the heavy motor vehicle and taken sufficient caution. We do not see any direct evidence that shows negligence on the part of the deceased that led to the accident. Therefore, as per the principles laid down by this Court in the case referred to above in this aspect, the contributory negligence apportioned by the courts below on the part of the deceased is set aside.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 730 - Full Document

Smt. Rajesh And Others vs Rajbir Singh And Others on 29 January, 2010

The Tribunal and the High Court have further failed in awarding only Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses instead of Rs.25,000/- according to the principles laid down by this Court in Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors.[7]. Hence, we award Rs.25,000/- towards the same. In the result, the appellant shall be entitled to compensation under the following heads:
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 5161 - R Bindal - Full Document
1