Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.36 seconds)The Oriental Insurance Company ... vs Thukarama Adappa S/O Venkappa Adappa ... on 18 November, 2006
11. On the other hand, counsel for the claimants
placing reliance on paragraph 21 of the judgment in the case
of Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Thukarama
Adappa reported in LAWS(KAR) 2006 11 46 and contends
that the insurer is liable to pay compensation for the injuries
sustained to the owner of the goods, which was carried in the
vehicle.
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Cholleti Bharatamma & Ors on 12 October, 2007
10. The judgment relied upon by the insurer in the
case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Cholleti Bharatamma
and ors. reported in AIR 2008 SC 484, in our considered view
would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances
involved herein. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by considering
the earlier judgments held that in the facts and
circumstances of the case involved therein, the deceased had
boarded the lorry and had paid an amount of Rs.20/- as
transport charges and the fact that the deceased was
travelling in the lorry along with the driver or the cleaner or
as owner of the goods had not been proved. Therefore, only
because there were goods in the vehicle and there were
: 15 :
other people in the vehicle does not mean that they can be
protected under Section 147 of the Act. Therefore, we are of
the view that the Hon'ble Supreme Court made a distinction
between the owners travelling in the vehicle along with their
own goods and the persons travelling by themselves along
with goods belonging to someone else. The facts herein are
quite opposite. There is substantial material and even in
terms of the contention of the insurer it is clear that right
from the stage of the FIR being lodged, the deceased and the
injured claimants were travelling in the vehicle with their
respective bags of chilly. Therefore, the aforesaid judgment
would be of no avail.
Ramachandrappa vs Manager, Reliance General Insurance ... on 9 March, 2015
14. M.F.A.Cross objection No.892 of 2013 has been
filed by the dependants of deceased Ullagaddi Ramanna
seeking enhancement of compensation. The case of the
claimants is that the deceased Ullagaddi Ramanna was aged
40 years at the time of the accident and was an agriculturist
owning 3 acres of agricultural land. Their claim was that he
was earning a sum of Rs.2 lakhs per annum. However, we
find that to be too excessive. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Ramachandrappa Vs. Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Co., Ltd., reported in 2011 (13) SCC 236 has held
that even a coolie in the State of Karnataka in the year 2008
would be entitled to a monthly income of Rs.4,500/- per
: 18 :
month. Herein is a case wherein the deceased was an
agriculturist owning agricultural lands also. Therefore, based
on the said judgment, we deem it proper to hold the monthly
income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- p.m. The multiplier
and the deduction adopted by the Tribunal are appropriate
and undisturbed. Hence, the loss of dependency is worked
out as follows:
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Pranay Sethi Son Of Late Prashant Sethi ... on 20 April, 2011
15. Towards conventional heads i.e., transportation
of dead body, funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of
consortium, a sum of Rs.70,000/- is awarded by following
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and
others reported in 2017 ACJ 2700. A sum of Rs.20,000/- is
awarded towards litigation expenses. Hence, the
compensation is enhanced to Rs.7,14,000/- which shall carry
interest at the rate of 6% p.a. M.F.A.Cross Objection No.892
of 2013 is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The judgment and
award dated 13.07.2010 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal-XII, Ballari, in M.V.C.No.1197 of 2009 is
: 19 :
modified to the extent indicated above. Consequently,
M.F.A.No.24943 of 2010 filed by the insurer is dismissed.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
1