Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.46 seconds)Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009
7. The claimants had proved before the tribunal that the deceased, after
retiring from Army service, was working for gain as an Assistant Manager
in a private security agency. Though they could not prove the exact
emoluments, which he was earning from the said private employment, the
MAC. APP. No.418/2010 Page 4 of 6
tribunal assumed it to the extent of ₹3,900/-, it being wages of a skilled
worker and added 50% towards future prospects. Having regard to the view
taken in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.,
(2009) 6 SCC 121 and Reshma Kumari V. Madan Mohan (2013) 9 SCC 65,
this was not correct.
Reshma Kumari & Ors vs Madan Mohan & Anr on 2 April, 2013
7. The claimants had proved before the tribunal that the deceased, after
retiring from Army service, was working for gain as an Assistant Manager
in a private security agency. Though they could not prove the exact
emoluments, which he was earning from the said private employment, the
MAC. APP. No.418/2010 Page 4 of 6
tribunal assumed it to the extent of ₹3,900/-, it being wages of a skilled
worker and added 50% towards future prospects. Having regard to the view
taken in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.,
(2009) 6 SCC 121 and Reshma Kumari V. Madan Mohan (2013) 9 SCC 65,
this was not correct.
Smt Shashikala vs Gangalakshmamma on 15 July, 2013
10. It is noted that the awards under the heads of loss of consortium,
funeral expenses and loss to estate are unduly low. Following the view
taken in Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54 and
Shashikala V. Gangalakshmamma (2015) 9 SCC 150, the award towards
loss of consortium is increased to ₹1 lakh and under the other two heads to
₹25,000/- each. Adding the cost incurred towards medicines and treatment
MAC. APP. No.418/2010 Page 5 of 6
(₹20,000/-) and award under the loss of love & affection at ₹1 lakh, the total
compensation payable in the case comes to (10,26,000 + 1,00,000 +
1,00,000 + 25,000 + 25,000 + 20,000) ₹12,96,000/-. In view of the finding
of contributory negligence to the extent of 25%, the claimants are held
entitled to receive (12,96,000 x 3 ÷ 4) ₹9,72,000/-. Needless to add, the
amount of ₹50,000 already paid under the no fault liability shall have to be
deducted and the net amount shall be receivable with interest as levied by
the tribunal.
Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
1