Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.23 seconds)Section 181 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel vs Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & on 3 October, 2017
21. In the case of a deceased minor aged nine years, the law
is settled that a minor cannot be treated as a non-earner for the
purposes of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. The
notional income of the child should be determined by adopting, at
least, the minimum wages payable to a skilled worker in the
relevant State as per the prevailing rates. Thereafter, appropriate
future prospects, deduction for personal expenses, and the
statutory multiplier are to be applied to arrive at the compensation
for loss of dependency, along with other heads such as loss of
estate and funeral expenses. This approach is in consonance with
the recent Supreme Court pronouncement in Hitesh Nagjibhai
Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr. (2025) and similar
High Court decisions."
Section 34 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 149 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Bimla Devi & Ors vs Himachal Road Transport Corpn. & Ors on 15 April, 2009
15. It is necessary to reassert that in a claim for
compensation filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, the claimant is expected to prove the incident on basis of
principle of preponderance of probabilities and the view taken by
this Court is fortified by the decision rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Kusum and others V/s Satbir and others
which is reported in 2011 SAR (CIVIL) 319. Further the
SCCH-8 10 MVC No.5829/2021
Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bimla Devi and others v.
Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others reported in
(2009) 13 SCC 530 has observed that, it is necessary to be borne
in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular
bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the
claimants. The claimants are merely required to establish their
case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The
standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been
applied.
Vijay Ishwar Jadhav vs Ulrich Belchior Fernandes on 7 March, 2018
30. The petitioners are claiming interest on the
compensation amount. Our Hon'ble High Court in the case
rendered in Vijay Ishwar Jadhav and others Vs Ulrich
Belchior Fernandes and another (MFA.No.100090/2014 C/W
MFA.No.25107/2013 dated 07.03.2018), has held that in the
absence of any other law relating to interest on judgments, the
SCCH-8 17 MVC No.5829/2021
MACT has to follow the provisions of Sec.34 of C.P.C and awarded
interest @ 6% per annum. Considering the aforesaid decision, I
deem it proper to award interest at 6% per annum on the above
compensation amount.