Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.43 seconds)Section 6 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport ... vs Sudhakar And Anr. on 10 January, 1967
In M.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Sudhakar 1977 Ace CJ 290 : (AIR 1977 SC 1189), the Supreme Court held :
Om Prakash And Anr. vs Smt. Rukmini Devi And Ors. on 20 April, 1982
In Hinch Narain v. State of U.P., 1977 Acc CJ 165 (All), Mahabir Prasad Goel v. Guru Saran Singh, 1983 Acc CJ 99 : (AIR 1983 All 20), Vinod Kumar v. Urmila Devi, 1983 Acc CJ 354 : (AIR 1983 All 112) and Om Prakash v. Rukmini Devi, 1983 Acc CJ 300 : (AIR 1982 All 389), this Court allowed a deduction of 25%.
Kundan Bala Vora And Anr. vs State Of U.P. on 7 March, 1983
In Moti Lal Vishwakarma v. Guru Bachan Singh, 1980 Acc CJ 462 : (1979 All LJ 222), which was followed in Kundan Bala v. State, AIR 1983 All 409, this Court allowed a deduction of 30%.
Brij Kali Devi And Ors. vs Ramchand Bishan Singh And Ors. on 10 November, 1978
In Brij Kala Devi v. Ramchand Bishan Singh, 1979 Acc CJ 164 : (AIR 1979 All 49) and Krishna Sehgal v. U.P. State Road Transport Corpn.1983 Acc CJ619 : (AIR 1983 All 159), this Court allowed a deduction of 33%.
Pijush Kanti Ghosh vs Sm. Maya Rani Chatterjee And Ors. on 24 March, 1970
In Piyush Kanti Ghosh v. Maya Rani, 1971 Acc CJ 267 : (AIR 1971 Cal229), State of Haryana v. Balbir Singh Hooda, 1975 Acc CJ 1 (Punj and Har), S. H. Naik v. Gokul Chandra Naik, 1980 Acc CJ 317 (Goa), General Assurance Society Ltd. v. Jayalakshmi Animal, 1975 Acc CJ 159 : (AIR 1975 Mad 198), Sambhupada v. Sobrani Sen, 1980 Acc CJ 180 (Cal) and Maheshwari Transport Co. v. Pritam Kaur, 1980 Acc CJ 157 (Madh Pra), deduction of 20% was allowed,
Amarjit Kaur And Ors. vs Vanguard Insurance Co. Ltd. And Ors. on 1 April, 1969
In Amarjit Kaur v. Vanguard Insurance Co. Ltd., 1981 Acc CJ 495 : (AIR 1982 Delhi 1), Laxmi Dhar Mohanty v. Bhanu Dei, 1980 Acc CJ 510 (Orissa), State of J and K v. Pushpa Devi, 1979 Acc CJ 403 (J and K) and Oriental Fire and-General Insurance Co. Ltd, v. Chunni Lal, 1969 Acc CJ 237 (Punj and Har) 15% deduction was allowed.
Smt. Sudershan Puri And Ors. vs R.S.R.T.C. And Anr. on 21 September, 1982
In Sudershan Puri v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corpn. 1983 Acc CJ 489 (Raj) deduction was refused as future prospects of the deceased were not taken into account.
Madhya Pradesh State Road ... vs Sudhakar & Ors. Etc on 15 April, 1977
54. We have carefully considered the numerous decisions of other High Courts in
which deduction was refused. Different sets of principles are applicable for determining compensation and allowing deduction on account of lump sum payment and uncertainties of life. The reasons given in these judgments may be taken into consideration while determining compensation but the same cannot justify refusal of deduction. We feel that in a judicial decision reason should prevail over sentiment. We are of the opinion that these decisions cannot be considered good law as the same do not follow the law laid down by the Supreme Court in M.P. Stare Road Transport Corporation v. Sudhakar, (AIR 1977 SC 1189) (supra). We respectfully agree with the consistent view of the various Division Benches of this Court and hold that a deduction has to be made for lump sum payment and uncertainties of life. In the circumstances of this, the Tribunal should have allowed a deduction of 25%.