cites: 27277225

Ravi vs Badrinarayan & Ors on 18 February, 2011

17. On the contrary the learned advocate for petitioner relied on the decision reported in 2011 ACJ 911 (Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan and others), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "lodging of FIR certainly proves factum of accident but delay in doing so cannot be the main ground for rejecting claim application".

Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 367 - D Verma - Full Document

Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd vs Beant Kaur And Ors on 14 March, 2019

22. On this point the learned Advocate for petitioner has relied on the Judgment reported in 2020 ACJ 2163 (Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Beant Kaur and others).

Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 164 - L Gill - Full Document

Raj Kumar vs Ajay Kumar & Anr on 18 October, 2010

In the background of principle laid down by their Lordships in the above said decision we can consider what amount the petitioner is entitled for compensation.

Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 3811 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

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

Considering the said facts his notional income is taken at SCCH-1 22 MVC No.743/2020 Rs.13,000/, 5% loss comes to Rs.650/ per month (Rs.13,000/ X 5/100) and its annual loss comes to Rs.7,800/ (Rs.650/ x 12). From Ex.P.10 - driving licence it is clear that date of birth of petitioner is 10.06.1983. Therefore as on the date of accident, he was 27 years. As per 2009 ACJ 1298 (Sarala Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation) the multiplier applicable to the present case is '17'. Therefore, petitioner is entitled for Rs.1,32,600/ (Rs.5,760/ X 17) towards Loss of income due to permanent disability sustained as a result of injuries.

Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 20141 - R V Raveendran - Full Document