Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.30 seconds)Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
New India Assurance Co.Ltd vs Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir & Anr on 12 May, 2008
8.Since the driving licence which was available on the record was
valid for driving LMV only and not LMV (Transport) and no other
licence was produced by the insured, it has to be held that the
driver possessed valid driving licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle
(LMV) only and not a transport vehicle. Thus, in view of the
judgment in Shashi Bhushan & Ors. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
& Ors., MAC APP.517/2007, decided on 31.05.2012; National
Insurance Co. v. Kusum Rai, (2006) 4 SCC 250; and New India
Assurance Company Limited v. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir &
Anr., (2008) 8 SCC 253, the driver was not competent to drive the
vehicle involved in the accident.
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Kusum Rai & Ors on 24 March, 2006
8.Since the driving licence which was available on the record was
valid for driving LMV only and not LMV (Transport) and no other
licence was produced by the insured, it has to be held that the
driver possessed valid driving licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle
(LMV) only and not a transport vehicle. Thus, in view of the
judgment in Shashi Bhushan & Ors. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
& Ors., MAC APP.517/2007, decided on 31.05.2012; National
Insurance Co. v. Kusum Rai, (2006) 4 SCC 250; and New India
Assurance Company Limited v. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir &
Anr., (2008) 8 SCC 253, the driver was not competent to drive the
vehicle involved in the accident.
Shashi Bhushan & Ors. vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors on 31 May, 2012
8.Since the driving licence which was available on the record was
valid for driving LMV only and not LMV (Transport) and no other
licence was produced by the insured, it has to be held that the
driver possessed valid driving licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle
(LMV) only and not a transport vehicle. Thus, in view of the
judgment in Shashi Bhushan & Ors. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
& Ors., MAC APP.517/2007, decided on 31.05.2012; National
Insurance Co. v. Kusum Rai, (2006) 4 SCC 250; and New India
Assurance Company Limited v. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir &
Anr., (2008) 8 SCC 253, the driver was not competent to drive the
vehicle involved in the accident.
Smt Sarla Dixit & Anr vs Balwant Yadav & Ors on 29 February, 1996
"31. A forceful submission has been made by the learned
counsel appearing for the claimantsappellants that both the
Tribunal as well as the High Court failed to consider the claims of
the appellants with regard to the future prospects of the children.
It has been submitted that the evidence with regard to the same
has been ignored by the Courts below. On perusal of the
evidence on record, we find merit in such submission that the
Courts below have overlooked that aspect of the matter while
granting compensation. It is well settled legal principle that in
addition to awarding compensation for pecuniary losses,
compensation must also be granted with regard to the future
prospects of the children. It is incumbent upon the Courts to
consider the said aspect while awarding compensation. Reliance
in this regard may be placed on the decisions rendered by this
Court in General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C. v. Susamma
Thomas (1994) 2 SCC 176; Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav
(1996) 3 SCC 179; and Lata Wadhwa case (supra)."
Chiranji Lal & Ors vs Mangat Ram & Ors on 20 January, 2010
Thus the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that denying compensation towards
future prospects seems to be unjustified and Rs.75,000/ were granted as
compensation for future prospects of the child. Accordingly the petitioners
would be entitled to an amount of Rs.75,000/ on account of future prospects.
The petitioners are thus entitled to compensation of Rs.2,25,000/ + 75,000/ +
75,000/ = Rs.3,75,000/. The Hon'ble High Court in Chiranji Lal and another
v. Mangat Ram and Others 2011 ACJ 614 held that in case of minors' death in
the accident, petitioners are entitled to a compensation of Rs.2,25,000/ under
the head of loss of income and Rs.75,000/ towards love and affection and Rs.
75,000/ towards future prospects, in total Rs.3,75,000/ as compensation.