Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.20 seconds)National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi on 31 October, 2017
In the light of the decisions of the
Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case and Pranay Sethi's case
referred to supra, the multiplier of 17 applied by the Tribunal is
not correct and the proper multiplier to be applied is 18.
Section 168 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Syed Sadiq Etc vs Divisional Manager,United India ... on 16 January, 2014
In Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2014) 2 SCC 735], taking note of
the earlier decision in Ramachandrappa's case (supra), the
Apex Court reckoned the monthly income of a vegetable vendor,
who met with a road accident in the year 2008, at the age of 24
years, notionally as Rs.6,500/-. In the said decision, the Apex
Court held that, a labourer in an unorganised sector doing his
own business cannot be expected to produce documents to
prove his monthly income. Therefore, there was no reason for
the Tribunal and the High Court to ask for evidence to prove his
monthly income. Going by the state of economy prevailing at
that time and the rising prices in agricultural products, the Apex
Court accepted his case that a vegetable vendor is reasonably
capable of earning 6,500/- per month.
Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009
In the light of the decisions of the
Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case and Pranay Sethi's case
referred to supra, the multiplier of 17 applied by the Tribunal is
not correct and the proper multiplier to be applied is 18.
Binoj Antony vs M/S. New India Assurance Co.Ltd on 23 October, 2010
In Binoj Antony v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
[2014 (1) KLT 393] a Division Bench of this Court held that,
the mere fact that a motorcycle was carrying two pillion riders
cannot ipso facto give rise to an inference of contributory
negligence unless it is positively proved that such carrying of two
pillion riders actually contributed to the accident. One can easily
visualise a case where a motorcycle with two pillion riders was
stationary on the right side of the motorcycle on a road and
another vehicle comes from behind and hits the vehicle. In such
a case, the mere fact that the motorcycle was carrying two
pillion riders cannot spell out negligence on the part of the rider
of the motorcycle or even on the two pillion riders. It is possible
to visualise several other similar circumstances, where mere
carrying of two pillion riders cannot possibly contribute to an
accident as such.
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation ... vs Trilok Chandra & Others on 7 May, 1996
In Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation
[(2009) 6 SCC 121], the Apex Court, after referring to its
MACA No.1364 of 2006
-:18:-
earlier decisions in Kerala State Road Transport Corporation
v. Susamma Thomas [(1994) 2 SCC 176], U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra [(1996) 4 SCC
362] and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie [(2005)
10 SCC 720] held that the multiplier to be used should be as
mentioned in column (4) of the Table in paragraph 40 of the said
decision [prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok
Chandra and Charlie], which starts with an operative multiplier
of 18 [for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years],
reduced by one unit for every five years, i.e., multiplier of 17 for
26 to 30 years, multiplier of 16 for 31 to 35 years, multiplier of
15 for 36 to 40 years, multiplier of 14 for 41 to 45 years, and
multiplier of 13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for
every five years, i.e., multiplier of 11 for 51 to 55 years,
multiplier of 9 for 56 to 60 years, multiplier of 7 for 61 to 65
years and multiplier of 5 for 66 to 70 years.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Charlie And Anr on 29 March, 2005
In Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation
[(2009) 6 SCC 121], the Apex Court, after referring to its
MACA No.1364 of 2006
-:18:-
earlier decisions in Kerala State Road Transport Corporation
v. Susamma Thomas [(1994) 2 SCC 176], U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra [(1996) 4 SCC
362] and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie [(2005)
10 SCC 720] held that the multiplier to be used should be as
mentioned in column (4) of the Table in paragraph 40 of the said
decision [prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok
Chandra and Charlie], which starts with an operative multiplier
of 18 [for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years],
reduced by one unit for every five years, i.e., multiplier of 17 for
26 to 30 years, multiplier of 16 for 31 to 35 years, multiplier of
15 for 36 to 40 years, multiplier of 14 for 41 to 45 years, and
multiplier of 13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for
every five years, i.e., multiplier of 11 for 51 to 55 years,
multiplier of 9 for 56 to 60 years, multiplier of 7 for 61 to 65
years and multiplier of 5 for 66 to 70 years.
Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C vs Susamma Thomas on 6 January, 1993
In Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation
[(2009) 6 SCC 121], the Apex Court, after referring to its
MACA No.1364 of 2006
-:18:-
earlier decisions in Kerala State Road Transport Corporation
v. Susamma Thomas [(1994) 2 SCC 176], U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra [(1996) 4 SCC
362] and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie [(2005)
10 SCC 720] held that the multiplier to be used should be as
mentioned in column (4) of the Table in paragraph 40 of the said
decision [prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok
Chandra and Charlie], which starts with an operative multiplier
of 18 [for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years],
reduced by one unit for every five years, i.e., multiplier of 17 for
26 to 30 years, multiplier of 16 for 31 to 35 years, multiplier of
15 for 36 to 40 years, multiplier of 14 for 41 to 45 years, and
multiplier of 13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for
every five years, i.e., multiplier of 11 for 51 to 55 years,
multiplier of 9 for 56 to 60 years, multiplier of 7 for 61 to 65
years and multiplier of 5 for 66 to 70 years.