Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.28 seconds)The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Arvind Kumar Mishra vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr on 29 September, 2010
In our view, the principles laid down in Arvind Kumar Mishra
vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. (supra) and Raj Kumar vs.
Ajay Kumar (supra) must be followed by all the Tribunals and the High
Court in determining the quantum of compensation payable to the victims
of accident, who are disabled either permanently or temporarily. If the
victim of the accident suffers permanent disability, then efforts should
always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical
injury and treatment, but also for the loss of earning and his inability to
lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but
for the disability caused due to the accident".
Nizam'S Institute Of Medical Sciences vs Prasanth S.Dhananka & Ors on 14 May, 2009
In Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S.
Dhananka MANU/SC/0803/2009: (2009) 6 SCC 1, the three-Judge
Bench was dealing with a case arising out of the complaint filed under the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986. While enhancing the compensation
awarded by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission from
Rs. 15 lakhs to Rs. 1 crore, the Bench made the following observations
which can appropriately be applied for deciding the petitions filed under
Section 166 of the Act:
Reshma Kumari & Ors vs Madan Mohan & Anr on 23 July, 2009
In Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan Manu/SC/1303/2009:
Raj Kumar vs Ajay Kumar & Anr on 18 October, 2010
In Raj Kumar V. Ajay Kumar Manu/SC/1018/2010: (2011)
1 SCC 343, the court considered some of the precedents and held:
Sajha & Ors vs National Insurance Co Ltd & Ors on 19 August, 2009
13. The petitioner/injured was a self employed person. He was
aged about 40 years at the time of accident. Hon'ble Delhi High Court
in Sajha Vs. National Insurance Co. 2010 ACJ 627 and New India
Assurance Co. Vs. Raja Ram MAC. APP. No. 175/06 decided on
25.8.2009 held that keeping in view the trend of increase of minimum
wages of semi skilled worker from time to time and rises in price index and
inflation, it can be said that minimum wages of unskilled worker would get
almost double over a period of next ten years and thus future prospects
should be given upon minimum wages also.
Shiddhi Gopal Dixit @ Siddh Gopal Dixit vs Siya Ram & Ors on 3 March, 2010
In this regard the petitioner has
relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in case titled Shiddhi
Gopal Dixit Vs Siya Ram & Others reported in 2012 ACJ 165. Thus
applying the formula given in these judgments, the monthly income of the
petitioner can be held at Rs. 3,600/- (3600/- + 50%).
Raviraj Udupa vs M/S. United India Ins. Co.Ltd. And Ors on 16 August, 2011
Court of India titled as Raviraj Udupa Vs United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. & Others 2012 ACJ 286 decided on 16.08.2011.
Bimla vs Gopal & Ors on 22 March, 2010
As no deduction from income has to be taken towards personal
expenses in case of injury as per decision of Delhi High Court in Bimla
Vs. Gopal MAC. APP No. 1028/2006 decided on 22.3.2010 so the
total loss of future income or earning capacity comes to Rs. as per the
formula (3600/- X 12 X 15 X 10%). Accordingly petitioner is granted loss
of future income at Rs. 64,800/- (in round figure).