Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.93 seconds)
Jasvir Singh vs Karam Singh & Anr on 21 September, 2022 cites

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

Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant has contended that considering the nature of injuries and the avocation of the injured, the compensation awarded under the head of "loss of future income" has been extremely on the lower side. He further contends that prior to the accident the appellant was suffering from polio stricken in his right femur and was 65% physically disabled and after this accident, due to injury on the right leg, disability has increased to 90% which is permanent in nature. He further submits that despite 65% disability prior to the accident, the appellant was in a position to work but after the accident, his earning capacity has completely diminished and therefore, loss of future earning capacity should have been taken as 100%. He further contents that as at the time of accident, the age of the appellant was 35 years, therefore, in view of the law laid down in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017(4) RCR (Civil) 1009, the future prospects should have been awarded @ 40% of the annual income and in view of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Smt.Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 77, multiplier should have been 16. He further contends that no compensation has been awarded due to loss of income during treatment and also submits that the compensation awarded under other heads is also very meager.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 20141 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Pappu Deo Yadav vs Naresh Kumar on 17 September, 2020

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book. With regard to the functional disability of the claimant/ appellant, I find force in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant. Keeping in view the nature of injuries, the functional disability of the claimant/ appellant should have been higher than 30% as assessed by learned Tribunal. As per the disability certificate, claimant/ appellant suffered enhanced permanent disability to the extent of 90% from initial 65% permanent disability which was on account of polio stricken right lower limb. However, for a person who is working as a labourer, a smooth movement of the leg is a necessary part of his functions and if there is any restriction on such movement, as claimed by the appellant that he cannot bend his knee on account of 90% permanent disability, then it will substantially affect his working capacity. Though, at the same time, it cannot also be taken to be 100%, as argued by the learnt counsel of the appellant, as the claimant was already suffering from a permanent disability of 65% due to polio stricken right lower limb. As such, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case as well as the nature of injuries suffered by claimant and also the permanent disability, I deem it appropriate to access functional disability @ 50%. It is settled law that in cases like the present one, the effect of permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured has to be assessed by the Tribunal. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Pappu Deo Yadav vs. Naresh Kumar and others', 2020 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 404 and relevant para of the same is extracted hereunder:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 289 - S R Bhat - Full Document

Mohan Soni vs Ram Avtar Tomar & Ors on 10 January, 2012

Learned Tribunal committed an error while keeping the functional disability on lower side by observing that claimant/appellant being a labourer cannot be said to be disabled for earning any kind of SANJAY GUPTA 2022.09.23 09:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 5 FAO-972-2014 (O&M) livelihood. However, in my opinion if any such plea is taken by respondent No.2 then the same has to be proved by it by leading cogent evidence as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohan Soni Vs. Ram Avtar Tomar, reported as 2012 (2) RCR (Civil) 431. The relevant para of which is reproduced hereunder:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 314 - A Alam - Full Document

Smt. Supe Dei And Ors. vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. And Anr. on 16 April, 2002

The grant of interest @ 6% per annum for the first three months is not just in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case; rather as per the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Supe Dei and others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and other, (2009) (4) SCC 513, which were approved in a subsequent judgment titled as Puttamma and others Vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and another, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443, the interest for the entire duration is enhanced to 9% per annum on the amount of compensation awarded to the claimant from the date of institution of claim petition till its realization. Needless to mention here that the amount of compensation already paid to the claimant shall be deducted from the enhanced compensation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 261 - Full Document

Puttamma W/O Lt Ramadas vs K L Narayana Reddy S/O Lt Lakshmaiah ... on 10 March, 2010

The grant of interest @ 6% per annum for the first three months is not just in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case; rather as per the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Supe Dei and others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and other, (2009) (4) SCC 513, which were approved in a subsequent judgment titled as Puttamma and others Vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and another, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443, the interest for the entire duration is enhanced to 9% per annum on the amount of compensation awarded to the claimant from the date of institution of claim petition till its realization. Needless to mention here that the amount of compensation already paid to the claimant shall be deducted from the enhanced compensation.
Karnataka High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 521 - M M Shantanagoudar - Full Document
1