Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (0.35 seconds)
Anil Kumar & Ors. vs . Suresh & Ors. on 18 August, 2021 cites

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

78. The petitioner has also brought on record a copy of his Aadhar card as Ex. PW3/1 and copy of his driving license as Ex. PW3/2. In aadhar card, the year of birth is mentioned as 1993 whereas in driving license, the age of petitioner is found recorded as 10.01.1989. Hence, going by the copy of driving license Ex. PW3/2, the date of birth is 10.01.1989. The accident in this case took place on 02.11.2015 and thus, the age of petitioner on the date of accident comes to 26 years, 9 months and around 23 days. Hence, in MACP No. 85/16, MACP No. 84/16 & DAR No. 152/16 Page no.28 of 44 view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been upheld by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment dated 31.10.2017 given in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014 and further in view of provisions laid down by Delhi High Court in case New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Harsh Vardhan & Ors., MACA No. 521/2008, decided on 20.07.2017, the multiplier of 17 is held applicable for calculating the loss of future earnings of the petitioner arising out of his above disability.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 20141 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

National Insurance Company Ltd vs Pranay Sethi Son Of Late Prashant Sethi ... on 20 April, 2011

79. Further, the petitioner is also held entitled to 40% addition in his income towards future prospectus in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the cases of Bajaj Alliance Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajeshwar Prasad & Ors., MACA 858/15 decided on 19.07.2017 and Faiyaz Ahmad Khan Vs. Chandra Pal Singh & Ors., MACA No.351/17 decided on 08.08.2017 as well as in the Constitution Bench Decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) as he was below 40 years of age at the time of accident.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 10133 - K Kannan - Full Document

Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Dharambir Singh & Ors on 18 July, 2018

721/2013 decided on 21.01.2015 and TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Priyanka & Ors. and Dharambir Singh & Ors., 2018 LawSuit (Del) 3635. The minimum wages of a non-matriculate at relevant of accident in the State of NCT of Delhi were Rs.10,140/- pm and the same will apply in this case as the documents tendered on record show that the deceased was residing in Delhi at that time. Thus, her annual earnings come to Rs.1,21,680/- (Rs.10,140/- X 12).
Delhi High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 9 - S Gaur - Full Document

Sube Singh vs Shyam Singh (Dead) on 9 February, 2018

46. PW1, in her affidavit, has claimed the age of deceased as 25 years at the time of accident. However, not even a single document has been placed on record to show that the age of the deceased was indeed 25 years. During course of arguments, it was pointed out that the age of deceased was mentioned as 25 years. That is the only document where the age of deceased is mentioned. Therefore, this tribunal has no option but to take the age of deceased as 25 years since the respondents also have not questioned or challenged the deposition of the claimant PW2 in this regard. Hence, in terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been approved in the Constitution Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, decided on 31.10.2017 and also reiterated by a Three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its subsequent judgment dated 09.02.2018 in Civil Appeal No. 7176/2015 in the case of Sube Singh & Anr. Vs. Shyam Singh (Dead) & Ors. and followed by MACP No. 85/16, MACP No. 84/16 & DAR No. 152/16 Page no.18 of 44 the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its various decisions, including the judgment dated 05.04.2018 passed in MACA No.94/18 in the case K.L. Jadhav & Ors. Vs. Abhishek & Ors., the multiplier in case of an unmarried deceased shall be as per age of the deceased himself and not according to the age of his parents and hence, the multiplier of '18' is held applicable in the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 155 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document

K L Jadhav & Anr vs Abhishek Kumar & Ors (New India ... on 5 April, 2018

46. PW1, in her affidavit, has claimed the age of deceased as 25 years at the time of accident. However, not even a single document has been placed on record to show that the age of the deceased was indeed 25 years. During course of arguments, it was pointed out that the age of deceased was mentioned as 25 years. That is the only document where the age of deceased is mentioned. Therefore, this tribunal has no option but to take the age of deceased as 25 years since the respondents also have not questioned or challenged the deposition of the claimant PW2 in this regard. Hence, in terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been approved in the Constitution Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, decided on 31.10.2017 and also reiterated by a Three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its subsequent judgment dated 09.02.2018 in Civil Appeal No. 7176/2015 in the case of Sube Singh & Anr. Vs. Shyam Singh (Dead) & Ors. and followed by MACP No. 85/16, MACP No. 84/16 & DAR No. 152/16 Page no.18 of 44 the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its various decisions, including the judgment dated 05.04.2018 passed in MACA No.94/18 in the case K.L. Jadhav & Ors. Vs. Abhishek & Ors., the multiplier in case of an unmarried deceased shall be as per age of the deceased himself and not according to the age of his parents and hence, the multiplier of '18' is held applicable in the present case.
Delhi High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 21 - J R Midha - Full Document
1   2 3 Next