Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.42 seconds)Section 149 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 173 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Section 158 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009
In the case reported as Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, Supreme Court, inter-alia, ruled
that the element of future prospects of increase in income will not be granted
in cases where the deceased was "self employed" or was working on a
"fixed salary".
Reshma Kumari & Ors vs Madan Mohan & Anr on 2 April, 2013
21. Against the above backdrop, by judgment dated 22.01.2016 passed in
MAC Appeal No. 956/2012 (Sunil Kumar v. Pyar Mohd.), this Court has
found it proper to follow the view taken earlier by a learned single judge in
MAC Appeal No. 189/2014 (HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Smt. Lalta Devi & Ors.) decided on 12.1.2015, presently taking the decision
in Reshma Kumari (Supra) as the binding precedent, till such time the law
on the subject of future prospects for those who are "self-employed" or
engaged in gainful employment at a "fixed salary" is clarified by a larger
bench of the Supreme Court. This applies to the matter at hand because the
MAC APP. No. 165/2011 Page 13 of 16
claimant here pleaded about gainful employment at a fixed salary and has
not led any evidence showing the salary was subject to any periodic
increase.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Pushpa Devi Aggrawal And Ors. on 30 March, 2012
Though this view was affirmed by a bench of three Hon‟ble
Judges in Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC
65, on account of divergence of views, as arising from the ruling in Rajesh
& Ors. vs. Rajbir & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54, the issue was later referred to a
larger bench, inter-alia, by order dated 02.07.2014 in National Insurance
Company Ltd. vs. Pushpa & Ors., (2015) 9 SCC166.
Sunil Kumar vs Pyar Mohd & Ors on 22 January, 2016
21. Against the above backdrop, by judgment dated 22.01.2016 passed in
MAC Appeal No. 956/2012 (Sunil Kumar v. Pyar Mohd.), this Court has
found it proper to follow the view taken earlier by a learned single judge in
MAC Appeal No. 189/2014 (HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Smt. Lalta Devi & Ors.) decided on 12.1.2015, presently taking the decision
in Reshma Kumari (Supra) as the binding precedent, till such time the law
on the subject of future prospects for those who are "self-employed" or
engaged in gainful employment at a "fixed salary" is clarified by a larger
bench of the Supreme Court. This applies to the matter at hand because the
MAC APP. No. 165/2011 Page 13 of 16
claimant here pleaded about gainful employment at a fixed salary and has
not led any evidence showing the salary was subject to any periodic
increase.
Lalta Devi & Anr. vs Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co Ltd & Ors. on 12 January, 2015
21. Against the above backdrop, by judgment dated 22.01.2016 passed in
MAC Appeal No. 956/2012 (Sunil Kumar v. Pyar Mohd.), this Court has
found it proper to follow the view taken earlier by a learned single judge in
MAC Appeal No. 189/2014 (HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Smt. Lalta Devi & Ors.) decided on 12.1.2015, presently taking the decision
in Reshma Kumari (Supra) as the binding precedent, till such time the law
on the subject of future prospects for those who are "self-employed" or
engaged in gainful employment at a "fixed salary" is clarified by a larger
bench of the Supreme Court. This applies to the matter at hand because the
MAC APP. No. 165/2011 Page 13 of 16
claimant here pleaded about gainful employment at a fixed salary and has
not led any evidence showing the salary was subject to any periodic
increase.