Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (2.38 seconds)
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Gulzara Bibi And Ors. on 4 July, 2018 cites

Mrs. Helen C. Rebello & Ors vs Maharashtra State Road Transport ... on 18 September, 1998

16. The principle discernable from the exposition in Helen C. Rebello's case (supra) is that if the amount " would be due to the dependents of the deceased even otherwise", the same shall not be deductible from the compensation amount payable under the Act of 1988. At the same time, it must be borne in mind that loss of income is a significant head under which compensation is claimed in terms of the Act of 1988. The component of quantum of "loss of income", inter alia, can be "pay and wages" which otherwise would have been earned by the deceased employee if he had survived the injury caused to him due to motor accident. If the dependents of the deceased employee, however, were to be compensated by the employer in that behalf, as is predicated by the Rules of 2006 - to grant compassionate assistance by way of ex-gratia financial assistance on compassionate grounds to the dependents of the deceased Government employee who dies in harness, it is unfathomable that the dependents can still be permitted to claim the same amount as a possible or likely loss of income to be suffered by them to maintain a claim for compensation under the Act of 1988.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 593 - Full Document

Bhakra Beas Management Board vs Kanta Aggarwal & Ors on 7 July, 2008

It was, thus, held that in the decision rendered in the case of Bhakra Beas Management Board(supra), the correctness of dictum in Mrs. Helen C. Rebello and Patricia Jean Mahajan(supra) had not been doubted at all. While discussing the principle expounded in Mrs. Helen C. Rebello's case(supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 16 of Shashi Sharma's case(supra), held thus:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 100 - A Pasayat - Full Document

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Mrs. Patricia Jean Mahajan & Others on 13 March, 2001

(ii) Under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the amount of compensation payable to the legal heirs/claimants must be just, fair, adequate and reasonable and should not be a bonanza, largess or source of profit. It is true that the claimants would have been entitled to full salary for a period of seven years as per service rules governing the deceased, even if the deceased would have died due to natural death. Strictly speaking there may not be any correlation between the pecuniary advantage received by the legal heirs of the deceased employee equivalent to the salary for a period of seven years and the death of the deceased occurred in a motor vehicular accident but at the same time, while calculating the loss of income happened due to the death of the deceased in the motor vehicular accident, the fact that the legal heirs/claimants would receive full salary for a period of seven years and that there would be no loss of income during the said period cannot be ignored. Though the other benefits like family pension, LIC, provident fund etc. would remain unaffected and could not be allowed to be deducted in view of the principle laid down in Helen C. Rebello's case and Patricia Jean Mahajan(supra).
Delhi High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 68 - M S Siddiqui - Full Document
1