Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.19 seconds)
Neetaben Gunvantbhai Thakkar And 4 Ors. vs Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply And ... on 30 April, 2008 cites

Minu B. Mehta And Another vs Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan And ... on 28 January, 1977

4. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Nanavati appearing for BEST submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in fixing the liability of the driver of the bus at 80%. In fact, the claimants have not joined drivers of either of the buses as respondent and drivers, therefore, did not have any opportunity to oppose the claim and to indicate that there was no negligence on their part. Mr. Nanavati relied on the decisions in the case of Minu B. Mehta and Anr. v. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan and Anr. , Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal and Ors. .
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 525 - P S Kailasam - Full Document

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Meena Variyal & Ors on 2 April, 2007

4. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Nanavati appearing for BEST submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in fixing the liability of the driver of the bus at 80%. In fact, the claimants have not joined drivers of either of the buses as respondent and drivers, therefore, did not have any opportunity to oppose the claim and to indicate that there was no negligence on their part. Mr. Nanavati relied on the decisions in the case of Minu B. Mehta and Anr. v. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan and Anr. , Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal and Ors. .
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 1989 - P K Balasubramanyan - Full Document

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation ... vs S. Rajapriya And Two Others on 20 April, 2005

11.3. The age of the deceased, though claimed to be 40 years, in fact, it is found to be 42 years (he was born on 3.6.1960 and expired on 23.4.2002). He was, therefore, aged 42 at the time of accident or death. The Tribunal has adopted multiplier of 14 which in our view is on a higher side keeping in light the decision in case of Tamilnadu State Road Transport Corporation v. S. Rajapriya and Ors. . In our view, a multiplier of 12 would be just to be adopted. This would fetch an amount of Rs. 21,74,400/- as compensation under the head of dependency loss. Added to this would be Rs. 5,48,426/- as compensation under the head of medical expenditure.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 467 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1