Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.18 seconds)
Lata Wadhwa & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 16 August, 2001 cites

The Chairman, A.P.S.R.T.C., Hyderabad vs Shafiya Khatoon And Ors. on 24 August, 1984

Mr. F.S. Nariman, the learned senior counsel, appearing for the company, on the other hand contended that in a compendious Public Interest Litigation, filed by three individuals on behalf of all those, who died and were injured in the tragic incident, the company itself was of the view that whatever amount of compensation is determined to be reasonable, the company will bear the same. It is in fact, he who came forward to make the offer and when the name of Shri Chandrachud was suggested, he had also agreed that the entire expenses could be borne by the company. But according to Mr. Nariman, in the absence of any data and figures for different heads of claim made by the claimants, the only option that was left for determination was some broad principles and in arriving at his ultimate conclusion, Shri Chandrachud has relied upon those broad principles and consequently, no error can be said to have been committed in the determination in question. According to Mr. Nariman, the principles evolved in Khatoons case have been duly analysed and applied and the contention of Mrs. Jethmalani that principles enunciated therein had not been followed, is not correct. Mr. Nariman, on his own, agreed that the compensation amount determined for the children could be doubled by this Court. Mr. Nariman, however seriously objected for the matter being remitted for re-determination, essentially, on the ground that it would be against the interest of the dependants of those who are dead as well as the injured and urged that if this Court is of the opinion that compensation awarded in respect of any of the claimants of the deceased persons or the injured is inappropriate, then this Court may arrive at the same and it would be a travesty of justice, if the matter would be prolonged by directing a further inquiry into the matter for re-determination. Mr. Nariman, emphatically urged that there has been no error committed by Shri Chandrachud in applying the broad principles and in fact, he had no other option in the absence of any data, being furnished by the claimants and the compensation awarded cannot be held to be arbitrary or meager, requiring any further interference by this Court. He also suggested that the benefits already given by the company itself could be taken into consideration, as was observed by the Court in its order dated 15th of December, 1993.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 20 - Cited by 38 - Full Document

Gujarat State Road Transport ... vs Chandulal G. Rasadiya on 14 October, 1992

In course of hearing of this petition and pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court, the company furnished the particulars of the persons injured as well as the particulars of the persons, who died. When the writ petition came up for disposal, Mr. F.S.Nariman, the learned senior counsel appearing for the company stated to the Court that notwithstanding several objections, which have been raised in the counter affidavit, the company does not wish to treat the litigation as an adversarial one, and on the other hand, the matter is left to the Court for determining what monetary compensation should be paid, according to law, after taking into consideration all the benefits and facilities already extended and continuing as summarised in the affidavit dated 3rd of February, 1993. This Court on 15th of December, 1993, came to the conclusion that the question of grant of compensation should be looked into by a person, having expertise and ultimately requested Shri Y.V. Chandrachud, former Chief Justice of India to look into the matter and determine the compensation, payable to the legal heirs of the deceased as well as compensation payable to the injured persons. It was also indicated on the basis of an agreement between the parties that in determining the compensation, principles indicated by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in its decisions in Chairman, A.P.S.R.T.C. vs. Safiya Khatoon [1985 Accident Claims Journal (A.C.J.)212], Bhagwan Das vs. Mohd. Arif [1987 A.C.J.1052], and A.P.S.R.T.C. vs. G. Ramanaiya (1988 A.C.J.223) should be borne in mind. The Court also further observed that while determining compensation, the benefits and advantages conferred on the injured persons or upon the legal heirs of the deceased persons by the company, need not be taken into account and that factor would be taken into consideration, while passing the final orders. The Court, also by the aforesaid order dated 15th December, 1993, stayed the criminal proceedings, pending in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jamshedpur as well as the Criminal Revisional Application, pending before the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court. It was directed further, that the matter should be placed for orders, after receipt of the report from Shri Y.V. Chandrachud.
Gujarat High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 12 - M B Shah - Full Document

General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C vs Susamma Thomas on 6 January, 1993

So far as the determination of compensation in death cases are concerned, apart from the three decisions of Andhra Pradesh High Court, which had been mentioned in the order of this Court dated 15th December, 1993, this Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum vs. Susamma Thomas and Ors., 1994(2) S.C.C. 176, exhaustively dealt with the question. It has been held in the aforesaid case that for assessment of damages to compensate the dependants, it has to take into account many imponderables, as to the life expectancy of the deceased and the dependants, the amount that the deceased would have earned during the remainder of his life, the amount that he would have contributed to the dependants during that period, the chances that the deceased may not have lived or the dependants may not live up to the estimated remaining period of their life expectancy, the chances that the deceased might have got better employment or income or might have lost his employment or income altogether. The Court further observed that the manner of arriving at the damages is to ascertain the net income of the deceased available for the support of himself and his dependants, and to deduct therefrom such part of his income as the deceased was accustomed to spend upon himself, as regards both self-maintenance and pleasure, and to ascertain what part of his net income the deceased was accustomed to spend for the benefit of the dependants, and thereafter it should be capitalised by multiplying it by a figure representing the proper number of years purchase. It was also stated that much of the calculation necessarily remains in the realm of hypothesis and in that region arithmetic is a good servant but a bad master, since there are so often many imponderables. In every case, it is the overall picture that matters, and the court must try to assess as best as it can, the loss suffered. On the acceptability of the multiplier method, the Court observed:
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 4294 - G N Ray - Full Document
1