Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.42 seconds)National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi on 31 October, 2017
10. The compensation granted by the Tribunal under the „non
pecuniary heads‟ needs to be brought in tune with Supreme Court's
Constitution Bench decision in Pranay Sethi (supra). Accordingly,
compensation granted to legal heir/ claimant of deceased- Javeria
Mahmood by the Tribunal under the head of "Loss of Love and affection"
Jagdish vs Mohan on 6 March, 2018
11. In light of the aforesaid, compensation granted by the Tribunal to
legal heir of deceased- Javeria Mahmood is enhanced from `13,05,000/-
to `15,42,000/-. A Three Judge Bench of Supreme Court in a recent
decision of Jagdish v. Mohan and Others, (2018) 4 SCC 571 has granted
interest @ 9% per annum on the awarded compensation and so, in the
instant case, it is directed that the re-assessed compensation shall carry
interest @ 9% per annum. Insurer is granted six weeks time to deposit the
modified compensation with interest @9% per annum with the Registrar
General of this Court, which shall be disbursed to the Claimant in the
manner as indicated in the impugned Award. Statutory deposit, if any, be
refunded to Insurer.
Narinder Singh vs New India Assurance Company Ltd And Ors on 4 September, 2014
In the considered opinion of this
Court benefit of Supreme Court's decision in Narinder Singh (Supra)
cannot be availed of by Insurer to avoid the liability to pay the awarded
compensation because there is no cross-examination of actual owner of
the insured vehicle in question. Even if it is taken that the Insurer had
insured the vehicle in question without a Fitness Certificate, then also, the
Insurer cannot be permitted to take the benefit of its own wrong. Thus,
MAC.APP. 380/2016 Page 5 of 7
MAC.APP. 497/2017
this Court is of the considered opinion that liability to pay the awarded
compensation cannot be shifted upon owner, as the Insurer of the insured
vehicle is liable to pay the awarded compensation.
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Mahmood Ali Khan & Anr. vs Arun Kumar Singh & Ors. on 3 February, 2015
5. The challenge to the impugned Award by learned counsel for
Claimant/ legal heir of deceased is on the ground that the applicable
multiplier has to be according to the age of deceased and not as per the
age of Claimant, and the Tribunal has erred in not doing so. It is next
submitted by counsel for Claimant that denial of interest w.e.f. 14th April,
2014 is unjustified in view of order of order of 3rd February, 2015 in
CM(M) 93/2015 Mahmood Ali Khan & Anr. Vs. Arun Kumar Singh &
Ors. It is further submitted that deceased- Javeria Mahmood was a
student, who was pursing B.A.LLB and was in 1st Semester and had a
bright future ahead and the Tribunal has erred in not granting
compensation towards „future prospects‟. Lastly, it is submitted that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal be suitably enhanced.
1