Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.40 seconds)
New India Assurance Company Limited ... vs Shanti Devi W/O Late Mansha Ram on 11 December, 2023 cites

Jiju Kuruvila & Ors vs Kunjujamma Mohan & Ors on 2 July, 2013

27. This Court further finds that the basic premise of the argument regarding the contributory negligence is the site plan which was placed on record bearing paper No.Ga-68. It is now well settled that a finding of contributory negligence cannot be solely returned on the basis of the site plan as noticed by the Apex Court in Jiju Kuruvila and others vs. Kunjujamma Mohan & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 166 and as noticed above that merely on the basis of site plan without leading any evidence, the insurer cannot successfully contest the plea and thus for all the aforesaid reasons the plea of contributory negligence is turned down.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 730 - Full Document

Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009

30. In this context, if the findings returned by the Tribunal are noticed, it would be seen that the claimants had stated that the deceased Mansha Ram was able to earn Rs.6,000/- from his business by selling grains, the Tribunal has adopted the notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum and treating the age of the deceased as 55 years, it has adopted the multiplier of 8 and after making deduction of 1/3rd has merely granted a sum of Rs.7,000/- towards conventional head as a total sum of Rs.87,000/- has been awarded. However, considering the facts of the case and the fact that the claimants/legal heirs of Mansha Ram could not prove that he was able to ear from his business, a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month and noticing that the accident was of the year 2008, accordingly, this Court finds that the notional income of the deceased ought to have been taken as Rs.30,000/- per annum. The age of the deceased was 55 years, upon which the multiplier of 9 ought to have been adopted as considering the number of dependent 1/3rd is liable to be deducted and 10% should have been added towards future prospect. Since, the deceased was survived by his wife and daughter, accordingly, both are also granted spouse consortium and parental consortium. This aspect has not been appropriately considered by the Tribunal, hence, in light of the principles which have been settled by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121; National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC Page 680 as well as Magma General Insurance Company Ltd., v. Nanu Ram, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1546, this Court finds that the amount as granted by the Tribunal requires modification and this Court re-determines the compensation as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 20141 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

National Insurance Company Ltd vs Pranay Sethi And Others on 22 June, 2022

30. In this context, if the findings returned by the Tribunal are noticed, it would be seen that the claimants had stated that the deceased Mansha Ram was able to earn Rs.6,000/- from his business by selling grains, the Tribunal has adopted the notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum and treating the age of the deceased as 55 years, it has adopted the multiplier of 8 and after making deduction of 1/3rd has merely granted a sum of Rs.7,000/- towards conventional head as a total sum of Rs.87,000/- has been awarded. However, considering the facts of the case and the fact that the claimants/legal heirs of Mansha Ram could not prove that he was able to ear from his business, a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month and noticing that the accident was of the year 2008, accordingly, this Court finds that the notional income of the deceased ought to have been taken as Rs.30,000/- per annum. The age of the deceased was 55 years, upon which the multiplier of 9 ought to have been adopted as considering the number of dependent 1/3rd is liable to be deducted and 10% should have been added towards future prospect. Since, the deceased was survived by his wife and daughter, accordingly, both are also granted spouse consortium and parental consortium. This aspect has not been appropriately considered by the Tribunal, hence, in light of the principles which have been settled by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121; National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC Page 680 as well as Magma General Insurance Company Ltd., v. Nanu Ram, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1546, this Court finds that the amount as granted by the Tribunal requires modification and this Court re-determines the compensation as under:-
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1946 - J R Dua - Full Document

Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram on 18 September, 2018

30. In this context, if the findings returned by the Tribunal are noticed, it would be seen that the claimants had stated that the deceased Mansha Ram was able to earn Rs.6,000/- from his business by selling grains, the Tribunal has adopted the notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum and treating the age of the deceased as 55 years, it has adopted the multiplier of 8 and after making deduction of 1/3rd has merely granted a sum of Rs.7,000/- towards conventional head as a total sum of Rs.87,000/- has been awarded. However, considering the facts of the case and the fact that the claimants/legal heirs of Mansha Ram could not prove that he was able to ear from his business, a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month and noticing that the accident was of the year 2008, accordingly, this Court finds that the notional income of the deceased ought to have been taken as Rs.30,000/- per annum. The age of the deceased was 55 years, upon which the multiplier of 9 ought to have been adopted as considering the number of dependent 1/3rd is liable to be deducted and 10% should have been added towards future prospect. Since, the deceased was survived by his wife and daughter, accordingly, both are also granted spouse consortium and parental consortium. This aspect has not been appropriately considered by the Tribunal, hence, in light of the principles which have been settled by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121; National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC Page 680 as well as Magma General Insurance Company Ltd., v. Nanu Ram, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1546, this Court finds that the amount as granted by the Tribunal requires modification and this Court re-determines the compensation as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 4992 - I Malhotra - Full Document
1