Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.82 seconds)
) Smt.Manjula vs Samesh Kumar on 6 October, 2015 cites

The Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... vs Shri Laxman Iyer And Anr on 27 October, 2003

25. The counsel for the respondent No.2 has also relied upon the judgment reported in 2003 AIR SCW 5505 (Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs Laxman Iyer and another). In this judgment, it is held that the act or omission amounting to want of ordinary are or in defiance of duty or obligation on the part of the complaining party which conjointly with the other part's negligence was the proximate cause of the accident renders it one to be the result of contributory negligence".
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 303 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Smt. Rajesh And Others vs Rajbir Singh And Others on 29 January, 2010

In view of the principles liaddown in the judgment reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 (Rajesh Vs. Rajbir Singh), the Apex Court held that even if a person is self employed, loss of future prospects has to be taken into consideration. In the case on hand, the deceased was working in a private firm and getting salary and thus, it can be assumed that the deceased had a bright future. Further, as the deceased was aged 27 years at the time of accident, 50%, from out of his income, has to be taken as loss of future prospects, which works out to Rs.4,981/- and thus the total (present income plus loss of future prospects) works out to Rs.14,944/-.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 5161 - R Bindal - Full Document

Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza & Ors vs Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service on 3 October, 2013

45. The Apex Court, in the case reported in 2013 ACJ 5800 (Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza Vs. AhmedAbad Municipal Transport Service) and also in the recent judgment reported in AIR 2014 SUPREME COURT 706 (Puttamma Vs. Narayana Reddy) awarded Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the family members (children and family members other than wife) for loss of love and affection, deprivation of protection, social security etc., and Rs.10,000/- towards cost incurred on account of funeral and ritual expenses. In this case also, I deem it proper to award Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the family members (children and family members other than wife) for loss of love and affection, deprivation of protection, social security etc., and Rs.10,000/- towards cost incurred on account of funeral and ritual expenses.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 277 - V G Gowda - Full Document

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

45. The Apex Court, in the case reported in 2013 ACJ 5800 (Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza Vs. AhmedAbad Municipal Transport Service) and also in the recent judgment reported in AIR 2014 SUPREME COURT 706 (Puttamma Vs. Narayana Reddy) awarded Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the family members (children and family members other than wife) for loss of love and affection, deprivation of protection, social security etc., and Rs.10,000/- towards cost incurred on account of funeral and ritual expenses. In this case also, I deem it proper to award Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the family members (children and family members other than wife) for loss of love and affection, deprivation of protection, social security etc., and Rs.10,000/- towards cost incurred on account of funeral and ritual expenses.
Karnataka High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 521 - M M Shantanagoudar - Full Document

M.C.D vs Asscn.,Victims Of Uphaar Tragedy & Ors on 13 October, 2011

In a case reported in (2011) 4 SCC 481 : (AIR 2012 SC 100) (Municipal Council of Delhi Vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy), the Supreme Court has held that the Court has to take into account the rate of interest of the nationalized bank and the present day cost of living 20 and thereby awarded, interest on the compensation amount at 9% p.a. I have no reasons to deviate from the said view of the Apex Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 1848 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Sharada Bai vs Managing Director, Ksrtc on 16 February, 1995

26. The counsel for the respondent No.2 has also relied upon the judgment reported in ILR 1987 KAR 2730 (Sharada Bai Vs KSRTC). In this judgment, regarding contributory negligence, the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court held that "Contributory Negligence - Burden of proof on propounder of defence to establish victim's failure to take reasonable care of himself as contributory cause - Reasonable care varies with prevailing conditions and circumstances - Unnecessary for propounder to adduce evidence - Inferable from evidence of claimants or perceptive facts admitted/established on balance of probabilities".
Karnataka High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1