Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.27 seconds)National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi on 31 October, 2017
"7. However, we find merit in the submission
which has been urged on behalf of the appellants
that the Tribunal failed to apply the correct
multiplier and erred in not granting the benefit of
future prospects in computing the income of
the deceased and the loss of dependency. Having
due regard to the judgment delivered by the
Constitution Bench of this Court in National
Insurance Company Limited v Pranay Sethi,
(2017) 13 Scale 12 : 2017 (4) TAC 673 and in
Sarla Verma v Delhi Transport Corporation,
(2009) 6 SCC 121 : 2009 (2) TAC 677, the
correct multiplier should be 17 having regard to
the age of the deceased.
Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd. ... vs Pranay Sethi And Ors. Reported In Air ... on 2 August, 2018
08. Per contra, Mr. Panigrahi, learned Advocate for the
respondent nos.1 and 2, submitted that the income of the deceased
towards his perk from the month of April, 2016 to December, 2016 was
Rs.74,117.31. Learned Tribunal ought to have added Rs.5,478/- towards
perk from his monthly salary income. If the same is added, monthly
income of the deceased comes to Rs.55,572/-. He further submitted that
the age of the deceased shall be taken into account while calculating the
multiplier. He placed reliance to the decision of the apex Court in the cases
of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Indira Srivastava and others, 2008 AIR
SCW 143, P.S. Somanathan and others vs. District Insurance Officer and
another, 2011 (1) T.A.C. 861 (SC), Amrit Bhanu Shali and others vs.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, 2012 (4) T.A.C. 775 (SC) National
Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 (II) ILR-CUT-
998 (SC).
Bijoy Kumar Dugar vs Bidyadhar Dutta & Ors on 1 March, 2006
In Bijay Kumar Dugar (supra), the apex Court taken into
account the age of the parents.
New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Smt. Shanti Pathak And Ors on 10 July, 2007
The same view was taken in Smt. Shanti
Pathak and others (supra).
Reshma Kumari & Ors vs Madan Mohan & Anr on 2 April, 2013
In Reshma Kumari and others (supra), the age of the
deceased was 15 years. The apex Court held that the learned Tribunal
shall select the multiplier as indicated in column no.4 of the table as
prescribed in Sarala Verma. It further held that the appropriate multiplier
should be 15.
General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C vs Susamma Thomas on 6 January, 1993
In K.S.R.T.C. (supra), the apex Court held that the multiplier-
method logically sound and legally well-established.
P.S. Somanathan & Ors vs District Insurance Officers & Anr on 17 February, 2011
In P.S. Somanathan and others (supra), the age of the
deceased was taken into account.
Amrit Bhanu Shali & Ors vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors on 4 April, 2012
In Amrit Bhanu Shali and others (supra), the deceased was a
bachelor. His age was taken into account.
Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009
"7. However, we find merit in the submission
which has been urged on behalf of the appellants
that the Tribunal failed to apply the correct
multiplier and erred in not granting the benefit of
future prospects in computing the income of
the deceased and the loss of dependency. Having
due regard to the judgment delivered by the
Constitution Bench of this Court in National
Insurance Company Limited v Pranay Sethi,
(2017) 13 Scale 12 : 2017 (4) TAC 673 and in
Sarla Verma v Delhi Transport Corporation,
(2009) 6 SCC 121 : 2009 (2) TAC 677, the
correct multiplier should be 17 having regard to
the age of the deceased.