Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.19 seconds)
Shirubai @ Sharada D/O Babu Chavan vs Kgid Motor Branch Banglore And Anr on 21 October, 2021 cites

Jagdish Chander (Dead) By L. Rs vs Brij Mohan & Ors on 6 February, 1978

8. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum submitted that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the notional income of the claimant at `3,000/- per month even while she was earning `6,000/- per month. He submitted that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the disability at 10% without taking into consideration the disability assessed by the doctor at 30%. He further submitted that considering the injuries suffered by the claimant in the nature of fractures and disfigured face and also injuries to her eye, resulting in she not being able to open her eyelid, the Tribunal ought to have granted just and sufficient compensation even under other heads. He relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Jagdish vs. Mohan and Others reported in (2018) 4 SCC 571 and in the case of Erudhaya Priya vs. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 601, justifying the claim for future prospects. Hence, sought for allowing of the appeal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 182 - S M Ali - Full Document

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

Taking into consideration the material evidence and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of 12 National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the claimant being aged about 25 years, is entitled to future prospects at 40% of the notional income. Thus, the claimant is entitled to compensation of `2,57,040/- (4250+40%x12x18x20%) towards loss of future income.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 9815 - D Misra - Full Document
1