Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.33 seconds)Mrs. Helen C. Rebello & Ors vs Maharashtra State Road Transport ... on 18 September, 1998
From para-35 of the
judgment in Helen Rebello's case, it can be inferred that when the benefit
is receivable by a claimant, both from the employer or under M.V. Act, is
without his contribution, then the profit and loss theory would apply.
However, if a benefit or an amount is earned by his own labour or
contribution, that pecuniary cannot be balanced out of the amount received
as compensation under M.V. Act, particularly when there is no co-relation
between two amounts. An amount of loss and gain under one contract,
cannot be made applicable to the loss and gain of another contract.
Similarly an amount receivable under statute may not have relation to an
amount earned by an individual in all cases.
The Fatal Accidents Act, 1855
Section 1 in The Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 [Entire Act]
Section 110 in Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 [Entire Act]
Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Icici Lombard General Insurace Co Ltd vs Swatantrata Sharma & Ors on 10 May, 2012
In Sebastiani Lakra's case [cited 7 supra] the Hon'ble Apex Court
referred to Helen C. Rebello's case [cited 6 supra] Patricia Jean
Mahajan's8 case, Vimal Kanwar Kishore Dan9's case and Shashi
Sharma10's case and observed that the principle in Helen C. Rebello's
case is followed.
Sebastiani Lakra vs National Insurance Company Ltd. on 12 October, 2018
26. The context in Sebastiani Lakra's case [cited 7 supra] before the
Supreme Court, which was considered by the three Judges Bench, is that
an objection raised by the Insurance Company for adjustment of the amount
of Rs.50,082/- paid to the claimants under Employees Family Benefit
scheme. Considering the same, when the compensation payable was
reduced, it was held that such deduction cannot be allowed. Relevant
observations made in para-12 to 14 of the judgment, they are as follows:-
Vimal Kanwar & Ors vs Kishore Dan & Ors on 3 May, 2013
27. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vimal Kanwar and Ors. Vs.
Kishore Das11, while interpreting the pecuniary advantages received,
observed that the salary receivable by the dependents upon compassionate
11
2013(7) SCC 476
18
appointment of a victim also does not come under pecuniary advantage on
par with Provident fund, pension, Life Insurance amount receivable by the
claimant and the same do not come within the purview of Motor Vehicles
Act to be termed as pecuniary advantage.