Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.19 seconds)Manjusri Raha & Ors Etc vs B.L. Gupta & Ors. Etc on 9 February, 1977
In Smt. Manjushri Raha v. B. L. Gupta (AIR 1977 SC 1158), the Supreme Court held that in the present economic condition the life of an average Indian has increased and as such it would be reasonable to expect longevity till the age of 65 years. The deceased could have therefore lived up to the age of 65 years. Even after his retirement the deceased would have received pensionary benefit and being a technical person he could have employed himself to some avocation. There is no evidence on record to show as to what amount of pension the deceased would have derived after his retirement but we think that the amount of pension would not have been less than Rs. 400/- per month. The deceased's income from other sources would have been about Rs. 500/- per month, out of which the petitioner could have spent and contributed a sum of Rs. 400/- per month towards maintenance of his wife only as his daughter would have been married much before his retirement from service. The deceased's contribution for the welfare of the widow at the rate of Rs. 4,800/- per annum for a period of seven years comes to Rupees 4,800 x 7 = 33,600/-. Thus in all the claimants were put to a pecuniary loss of Rs. 1,80,000/- plus Rs. 33,600 = 2,13,600/-.
Dr. Jagjit Singh vs Giani Kartar Singh And Ors. on 25 November, 1965
7. Learned counsel for the claimants urged that no deduction on account of lump sum payment should be made. He cited a number of authorities--Maj. Jagjit Singh v. Kartar Singh (1973 Acc CJ 147); Kailash-wati v. Haryana State, 1974 Ace CJ 514: (AIR 1975 Him Pra 35); and Ganga Devi v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (1980 Acc CJ 364) (Delhi). None of these authorities lay down clearly that no deduction on the basis of lump sum payment is permissible, besides in each case the question of compensation was considered on its own facts and circumstances.
Kailash Wati And Anr. vs State Of Haryana And Anr. on 10 September, 1974
7. Learned counsel for the claimants urged that no deduction on account of lump sum payment should be made. He cited a number of authorities--Maj. Jagjit Singh v. Kartar Singh (1973 Acc CJ 147); Kailash-wati v. Haryana State, 1974 Ace CJ 514: (AIR 1975 Him Pra 35); and Ganga Devi v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (1980 Acc CJ 364) (Delhi). None of these authorities lay down clearly that no deduction on the basis of lump sum payment is permissible, besides in each case the question of compensation was considered on its own facts and circumstances.
Smt. Ganga Devi And Ors. vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And Ors. on 7 March, 1980
7. Learned counsel for the claimants urged that no deduction on account of lump sum payment should be made. He cited a number of authorities--Maj. Jagjit Singh v. Kartar Singh (1973 Acc CJ 147); Kailash-wati v. Haryana State, 1974 Ace CJ 514: (AIR 1975 Him Pra 35); and Ganga Devi v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (1980 Acc CJ 364) (Delhi). None of these authorities lay down clearly that no deduction on the basis of lump sum payment is permissible, besides in each case the question of compensation was considered on its own facts and circumstances.
1