Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.74 seconds)
Smt. Kalawati W/O Late Sh. Chhotu Ram vs Sh. Jagmohan S/O Shri Naider Singh on 25 February, 2010
cites
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Vijay Kumar Mittal And Ors. on 11 May, 2007
29. It is now well settled that while estimating future loss of income,
the Court has to take into account future prospects of the injured and the
increase in cost of living and price index.[ See (1) K. Narsimha Murthi V. The
Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.,reported in 2004 ACJ 1109;
(2)Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vijay Kumar Mittal, reported in
III(2007)ACC 676 and (3) Santosha Devi Vs. Abdul Kareem & Ors, in MAC
Appeal No. 440/09 decided on 08/10/09 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha]
Santosha Devi vs Abdul Kareem & Ors. on 8 October, 2009
29. It is now well settled that while estimating future loss of income,
the Court has to take into account future prospects of the injured and the
increase in cost of living and price index.[ See (1) K. Narsimha Murthi V. The
Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.,reported in 2004 ACJ 1109;
(2)Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vijay Kumar Mittal, reported in
III(2007)ACC 676 and (3) Santosha Devi Vs. Abdul Kareem & Ors, in MAC
Appeal No. 440/09 decided on 08/10/09 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha]
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Rajinder Kumar And Ors. on 28 April, 1995
In the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajinder Kumar &
Others,reported in III (2007)ACC 19, Hon'ble Mr. Justice, Pradeep Nandrajog
had held that when the injured, a qualified stenographer suffered permanent
disability resulting in 44% functional disability on left arm crushed under
bus, there was no infirmity found in the award recompensating loss of
future earning due to disability suffered by injured as a result of
accident,even though the petitioner had not suffered any cut in salary and
was employed with the same employer. Also was held that if as a
result of the accident, human anatomy is shattered or a limb is
damaged, as far as possible, loss occasioned in terms of money to the victim
of the unfortunate road mishap has to be recompensed. Damages have to
be full and adequate. In case of personal injuries, the assessment of
damages have to take into consideration the restriction of future earning
capacity. The loss of chance of better employment or prospects have also to
12
be examined and assessed. The impairment of the body as a whole has to
be considered and its resultant impact on the earning or earning capacity as
also future prospects in increasing the earning capacity have to be
considered.
Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009
In terms of law laid in the case of ' Smt. Sarla Verma & ors Vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr, reported in III (2009) ACC 708 (SC), it
was held that in a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the
14
multiplier of 14 is to be applied for assessing the compensation for the victim
of the road accident(for the age group of 41 to 45 years). Since the
petitioner was of age 41 years as on the date of accident, here also the
multiplier of 14 is to be adopted in this case for assessing the compensation
for petitioner.
Patti Ram vs Kushal Pal Singh on 4 November, 2009
42. Due to the suffered permanent disability and the amputation of the
right lower limb, for all her remaining life, the petitioner would be
incapacitated to travel by public transport and she will always have to incur
extra expenses on travel. Relying upon law laid in the case of Patti
Ram(supra), the petitioner is accordingly held entitled for the loss on account
of conveyance @ Rs. 500/- per month which would be Rs. 84,000/- ( Rs.
500/- X 12x14).
The Divisional Controller, Ksrtc vs Mahadeva Shetty And Anr on 31 July, 2003
43. One cannot over look the fact that realigned bones would cause
life long pain to the petitioner during winter and rainy season. It is settled law
that no amount of compensation can be adequate for the physical dis-
comfort, mental pain and suffering. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in The
Divisional Controller, KSRTC Vs. Mahadeva Shetty & Anr, reported in AIR
2003 SC 4172, has made the following observations regarding
compensation for pain and suffering:-
General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C vs Susamma Thomas on 6 January, 1993
49. Since the amount awarded should not be frittered away by
beneficiaries owing to the ignorance, illiteracy etc., the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in a case titled 'G. M. Kerala State Road Transport
20
Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas' reported in 1994(2) SCC 176, has
laid guidelines pronouncing that in a case of compensation, it is appropriate
that Tribunals do keep in mind the principles enunciated by this court in
'Union Carbide Corporation Vs. Union of India', 1991(4) SCC 584, in the
matter of appropriate investments to safeguard the feed from being frittered
away by the beneficiaries owing to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptible to
exploitation. Guidelines inter alia included of investment of share of the
claimants in FDRs in nationalized banks with conditions that bank will not
permit any loan or advance on the fixed deposits and interest on the amount
invested is paid monthly / periodically directly to the claimant and such
investment may be made in more than one fixed deposit. In case of any
exigency, claimants are at liberty to apply to Tribunal for withdrawal of such
investment.
Union Carbide Corporation Etc. Etc vs Union Of India Etc. Etc on 3 October, 1991
49. Since the amount awarded should not be frittered away by
beneficiaries owing to the ignorance, illiteracy etc., the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in a case titled 'G. M. Kerala State Road Transport
20
Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas' reported in 1994(2) SCC 176, has
laid guidelines pronouncing that in a case of compensation, it is appropriate
that Tribunals do keep in mind the principles enunciated by this court in
'Union Carbide Corporation Vs. Union of India', 1991(4) SCC 584, in the
matter of appropriate investments to safeguard the feed from being frittered
away by the beneficiaries owing to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptible to
exploitation. Guidelines inter alia included of investment of share of the
claimants in FDRs in nationalized banks with conditions that bank will not
permit any loan or advance on the fixed deposits and interest on the amount
invested is paid monthly / periodically directly to the claimant and such
investment may be made in more than one fixed deposit. In case of any
exigency, claimants are at liberty to apply to Tribunal for withdrawal of such
investment.