Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.23 seconds)
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs V.K.Gopalakrishnan on 3 November, 2023 cites

Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi & Ors vs Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co. (P) Ltd. & ... on 25 March, 1977

10.The High Court has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Pushpabai Purahottam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co (P) Ltd. , (1977) 2 SCC 745 . That Judgment was based upon the relevant clause in the Insurance Policy in that case which restricted the legal liability of the Insurer to the statutory requirement under Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act. That decision will have no bearing in the present case inasmuch as the terms of the Policy here are wide enough to cover a gratuitous occupant of the vehicle".
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 516 - P S Kailasam - Full Document

Amrit Lal Sood & Anr vs Smt. Kaushalya Devi Thapar & Ors on 17 March, 1998

"the injured was a gratuitous passenger travelling in a Private Car. The High Court held that the insured was not liable since the Claimant was only passenger. The Insurance Policy was extracted by the Supreme Court and we find that it is almost identical to the Policy in the case before us. The Supreme Court held in Amritlal Sood v. Kaushalya Devi Thapar (supra) as follows at pp 46 & 47 of MLJ. "3.The question to be decided is whether the Insurer is liable to satisfy the claim for compensation made by a person travelling gratuitously in the Car. The factual findings are not in dispute before us but for the contention of the Appellants that the amount of compensation awarded by the Division Bench is excessive. We have no difficulty in repelling that contention as we find the materials on record to be sufficient to support the award of enhanced compensation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 210 - Full Document

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

19.In the instant case, as per Ex. A.62- salary certificate, the gross salary of the deceased at the time of his death was Rs. 16,221/- p.m. and his net. salary was Rs. 9,405/- p.m. Keeping in view, the promotional chances of the deceased, who was aged 49 years on the date of his death, 30% of the actual salary can be added to his income towards future prospects which comes to Rs. 9,406/- + Rs. 2822/- = Rs. 12,228/-, as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Varma and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. 2009 (2) L.S. 29 (S.C.). Therefore, the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs. 12,228/- x 12 = Rs. 1/46,736/-. From this 1/3rd has to be deducted towards personal living expenses of the deceased which comes to Rs. 48,912/- and the remaining 2/3rd amount i.e. Rs. 97,824/- shall be taken as contribution to the family. The multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased is 13. To arrive at the loss of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8 dependency, the above amount has to be capitalised with 13, which comes to Rs. 97,824/- x 13 = Rs. 12,71,712/-. This apart, the first claimant, who is the widow of the deceased is entitled for an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium and the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses. In all, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 12,91,712/-.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 20141 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Yashpal Luthra & Anr. vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. And Anr on 17 December, 2009

Thereafter, the Bench took note of a decision rendered by Delhi High Court in Yashpal Luthra and Anr. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.: 2011 ACJ 1415 wherein the High Court had referred to the circulars issued by the Tariff Advisory Committee (TAC) and Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA). This Court referred to the portion of circulars dated 16.11.2009 and 3.12.2009 which had been reproduced by the High Court and eventually held as follows:
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 120 - J R Midha - Full Document
1   2 Next