Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.77 seconds)
Soman vs Jinesh James on 4 August, 2020 cites

National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi on 31 October, 2017

[(2011) 13 SCC 236]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also recognized the principle that there would be incremental enhancement in the case of even self-employed individuals in the un-organized sector (National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680) and with respect to an unspecified job of a coolie considering the increase in cost of living and economic advancements over the years, it can be safely assumed that even a coolie would be eligible for incremental addition of at least Rs.500/- in every subsequent year. In such circumstances, the appellant who is a coolie, is entitled to be fixed with a notional income of Rs.7500/- as on the year of accident, which is 2010. Considering the long hospitalization, there is scope for further enhancement, for extra nourishment and bystander expenses, which are granted as per the table below. The loss of earnings also ought to be granted for 10 months, since the appellant was hospitalized for more than seven months. In the context of awarding compensation for loss of earning, there is no question of further grant of compensation of loss of earning (partial), which is deleted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 9815 - D Misra - Full Document

Syed Sadiq Etc vs Divisional Manager,United India ... on 16 January, 2014

should also be future prospects granted in awarding the compensation for loss of future earning capacity. The learned Counsel has relied on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to contend that in cases of serious disability there could be future prospects awarded. Syed Sadiq & Others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. [(2014) 2 SCC 735] was a case in which a vegetable vendor and a lorry cleaner assessed with a disability of 85% was allowed an addition on future prospects.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 1338 - V G Gowda - Full Document

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Dhanesh on 9 March, 2020

accident. A decision of this court in M.A.C.A.No.434 of 2014 dated 09.03.2020 [The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dhanesh] was also relied on, wherein the injured was an Engineer who was a Concrete Technologist, whose employment required him to carry out inspection of the sites in which construction is being carried out. The injured was certified as suffering from 57% permanent disability. The principle as can be discerned from the above decisions is that the functional disability as also the loss of future income has to be assessed looking at the nature of employment and the prospects the injured had. Casual employees who had more than 80% disability, a carpenter who could not carry out his profession due to amputation of both his hands, an Advocate who could not carry on her profession, a bright student whose future prospects were snuffed out and an Engineer who could not discharge his duties effectively; all by reason of an accident were found to be affected functionally to a large extent above the disability assessed and future prospects were computed for the purpose of determining compensation for loss of future earnings. This cannot be applied in every case. The specific contention taken in the above case is that the injured was a coolie which is often the employment MACA.1024 of 2014 - 7 -
Kerala High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - A Narendran - Full Document
1