Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (0.34 seconds)

Mr. R.D. Hattangadi vs M/S Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 6 January, 1995

5. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act", for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or the Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. [See C.K. Subramania Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair [(1969) 3 SCC 64 : AIR 1970 SC 376] , R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) MACT No.376 /2022 Sunita Shukla Vs. Rahul Katyal & ors. Page 11/23 (P) Ltd. [(1995) 1 SCC 551 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 250] and Baker v. Willoughby [1970 AC 467 : (1970) 2 WLR 50 : (1969) 3 All ER 1528 (HL)] .]
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 1698 - N P Singh - Full Document

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Kamlesh & Ors. on 9 August, 2017

17. Further, respondent No.1 did not adduce any evidence to divulge details about mode and manner of accident. It settled that if driver of offending vehicle does not enter the witness box, an adverse inference can be drawn against him as observed by Hon'ble High Court of India in the case of Cholamandlam insurance company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, 2009 (3) AD Delhi 310. In the present case also, driver did not enter into the witness box to controvert the claim of petitioner or even to explain circumstances of accident.
Delhi High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 76 - J R Midha - Full Document
1   2 3 Next