Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.26 seconds)Section 158 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 168 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Union Carbide Corporation Etc. Etc vs Union Of India Etc. Etc on 3 October, 1991
Further, in Lilaben Udesing Gohel v. Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd. and others [(1996) 3 SCC 608] the Court relied upon the said
directions and further held that in Union Carbide Corporation's case
(supra), this Court did not include the clause regarding literate
persons' compensation and directed that it should be given the same
treatment in case the Court found it necessary to do so to protect the
compensation awarded to them. The Court further added one
guideline as under:
Sheikhupura Transport Co. Ltd vs Northern India Transport Insurance Co on 16 March, 1971
Thereafter, the Court referred to the decision in
Sheikhupura Transport Co. Ltd (supra) and held that the pecuniary
loss to the aggrieved party would depend upon data which cannot be
ascertained accurately but must necessarily be an estimate or even
partly a conjecture, and if this is so, then it will be unreasonable to
expect the party to state precisely the amount of damages or
compensation that it would be entitled to. The Court also held that
there are no fetters on the power of the Tribunal to award
compensation in excess of the amount which is claimed in the
application.
Section 169 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Lilaben Udesing Gohel vs The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.& ... on 15 March, 1996
Further, in Lilaben Udesing Gohel v. Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd. and others [(1996) 3 SCC 608] the Court relied upon the said
directions and further held that in Union Carbide Corporation's case
(supra), this Court did not include the clause regarding literate
persons' compensation and directed that it should be given the same
treatment in case the Court found it necessary to do so to protect the
compensation awarded to them. The Court further added one
guideline as under:
Dr. Urmila J. Sangani vs Pragjibhai Mohanlal Luvana And Ors. on 7 April, 2000
Mr. P.K. Chakravarty, learned counsel appearing for the
Insurance Company, in support of his contention that the Tribunal has
no jurisdiction to award higher amount of compensation than what is
claimed even though it is not likely to cause prejudice to the
Insurance Company, heavily relied upon the decision rendered by the
Full Bench of the High Court of Gujarat in Dr. Urmila J. Sangani v.
Pragjibhai Mohanlal Luvana and others [AIR 2000 Gujarat 211]. In
that case, the High Court after considering relevant decisions on the
subject observed thus: