Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.27 seconds)Article 142 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 95 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2000
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi on 31 October, 2017
29. Accordingly in view of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's as well as
Sunita's cases (supra), by enhancing the compensation
under the conventional heads @ 10%, after every three
::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2026 08:55:15 :::CIS
18 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:13515 )
years from the year 2017, the petitioners are entitled to loss
of estate at Rs.19,965/-, funeral expenses at Rs.19,965/-,
petitioner No.1, being widow of the deceased, is entitled to
.
Section 173 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
M/S. National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Baljit Kaur And Ors on 6 January, 2004
In this respect he
has also placed reliance upon National Insurance
Company Limited vs. Baljit Kaur & others, reported in
(2004) 2 SCC 1, National Insurance Company vs. Saju P.
of
Paul & another, reported in (2013) 2 SCC 41 and Manuara
Khatun & others vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh & others,
rt
reported in (2017) 4 SCC 796. However, the perusal of the
aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court shows
that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation
for the death of or injury to any gratuitous passenger and,
therefore, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify
the award. From a close perusal of the aforesaid decisions, it
is discernible that the direction of pay and recover made in
Baljit Kaur, Saju P. Paul & Manuara Khatun's cases
(supra) by the Apex Court was in exercise of its extra-
Chandra @ Chnada @ Chandraram vs Mukesh Kumar Yadav on 1 October, 2021
In Chandra v. Mukesh Kumar
of
Yadav, (2022) 1 SCC 198 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that in absence of proof with respect to the income of the
rt
deceased/claimant some guesswork has to be done by the
court in order to assess the income of the
deceased/claimant. However, this guesswork cannot be
detached from the reality. The relevant paragraph of the said
judgment is reproduced as under:
Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009
In Sarla Verma's case (supra), it has further been
held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the multiplier to be
used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table
above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok
Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative
multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25
years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17
for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40
years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years,
then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11
::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2026 08:55:15 :::CIS
15 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:13515 )
for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65
years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years. The relevant portion of the
aforesaid judgment is as under:-