Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 33 (2.35 seconds)
Pappu Deo Yadav vs Naresh Kumar on 17 September, 2020 cites

Raj Kumar vs Ajay Kumar & Anr on 18 October, 2010

16. Recently, in Anthony Alias Anthony Swamy v. Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C21 where the victim was a painter by profession, a three-judge bench had followed Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar22 and Nagarajappa v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited23. The High Court had assessed the injury to be 25% permanent disability, although the treating doctor had said that the injury incurred by the bus passenger (who was earning ₹ 9000/- per month) was 75% of the left leg and 37.5% for the whole body. In Raj Kumar24, the physical disability of the upper limb was determined as 68% in proportion to 22-23% of the whole-body. The High Court had assessed the injury as 25% and granted compensation. However, this court assessed the injury on the basis that the disability was 75%, stating as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 3811 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

K. Suresh vs New India Assurance Co.Ltd & Anr on 19 October, 2012

10. This Court in K. Janardhan case [(2008) 8 SCC 518 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 733] , set aside the High Court judgment and held that the tanker driver had suffered 100% disability and incapacity in earning his keep as a tanker driver as his right leg was amputated from the knee and, accordingly, restored the order passed by the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 236 - D Misra - Full Document

Nizam'S Institute Of Medical Sciences vs Prasanth S.Dhananka & Ors on 14 May, 2009

This court referred to the pronouncements in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC 551; Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka (2009) 6 SCC 1; Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan (2009) 13 SCC 422; Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343. Govind Yadav spelt out these principles by stating that the courts should, “in determining the quantum of compensation payable to the victims of accident, who are disabled either permanently or temporarily.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 565 - Full Document

Reshma Kumari & Ors vs Madan Mohan & Anr on 23 July, 2009

This court referred to the pronouncements in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC 551; Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka (2009) 6 SCC 1; Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan (2009) 13 SCC 422; Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343. Govind Yadav spelt out these principles by stating that the courts should, “in determining the quantum of compensation payable to the victims of accident, who are disabled either permanently or temporarily.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 349 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. ... vs Ajay Kumar Mohanty . on 6 March, 2018

If the victim of the accident suffers permanent disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the loss of earning and his inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident.” These decisions were also followed in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar Mohanty, (2018) 3 SCC 686.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 33 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

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

In the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680], this Court has held that the benefit of future prospects should not be confined only to those who have a permanent job and would extend to self-employed individuals. In the case of a self-employed person, an addition of 40% of the established income should be made where the age of the victim at the time of the accident was below 40 years. Hence, in the present case, the appellant would be entitled to an enhancement of Rs 2400 towards loss of future prospects.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 9815 - D Misra - Full Document

Parminder Singh vs New India Assurance Company Ltd. on 1 July, 2019

10. The recent decision in Parminder Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd15, involved an accident victim who underwent surgery for hemiplegia16. According to the treating medic, he could not work as a labourer or perform any agricultural work, or work as a driver (as he was wont to); the assessment of his disability was at 75%, and of a permanent nature. The court held that:
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 151 - I Malhotra - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next