Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.24 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Jaswant Kaur Sethi vs Tamal Das & Ors. on 26 October, 2009
Indeed, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in
Patricia Jean Mahajan (supra), which has been followed by the learned
single judge of this court in cases of Jaswant Kaur Sethi (supra) and
Deepmala Goel (supra), the judgments in the three cases cited by the
tribunal cannot be taken as good law. The amount of `1,22,200/- had
already been received as reimbursement by the claimant through his son. In
these circumstances, the said very amount could not have been claimed
again in the claim petition. The award to that extent, thus, will have to be
set aside. In these circumstances, the award in the present case will have to
be restricted to `39,000/- only.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Deepmala Goel & Ors. on 30 March, 2012
Indeed, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in
Patricia Jean Mahajan (supra), which has been followed by the learned
single judge of this court in cases of Jaswant Kaur Sethi (supra) and
Deepmala Goel (supra), the judgments in the three cases cited by the
tribunal cannot be taken as good law. The amount of `1,22,200/- had
already been received as reimbursement by the claimant through his son. In
these circumstances, the said very amount could not have been claimed
again in the claim petition. The award to that extent, thus, will have to be
set aside. In these circumstances, the award in the present case will have to
be restricted to `39,000/- only.
Dr. A.C. Mehra vs Behari Lal And Anr. on 1 November, 1996
5. First plea is that Shiv Charan, son of the claimant who appeared as
PW2 during the inquiry had admitted that he had received reimbursement of
the medical expenditure in the sum of `1,22,200/- from his employer in
terms of the health benefit scheme to which he was entitled. The contention
of insurance company is that the tribunal had wrongly declined to discount
the effect of the said imbursement by placing reliance on Dr. A. C. Mehra
vs. Behari Lal & Anr., I (1997) ACC 657, Oriental Insurance Company vs.
K. P. Kapur, I (1997) ACC 138 & Raghbir Singh vs. Harbans Kaur & Ors.,
1985 ACJ 676.
Section 3 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 181 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Etc. Etc vs Patrica Jean Mahajan And Ors. Etc. Etc on 8 July, 2002
Indeed, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in
Patricia Jean Mahajan (supra), which has been followed by the learned
single judge of this court in cases of Jaswant Kaur Sethi (supra) and
Deepmala Goel (supra), the judgments in the three cases cited by the
tribunal cannot be taken as good law. The amount of `1,22,200/- had
already been received as reimbursement by the claimant through his son. In
these circumstances, the said very amount could not have been claimed
again in the claim petition. The award to that extent, thus, will have to be
set aside. In these circumstances, the award in the present case will have to
be restricted to `39,000/- only.
Oriental Insurance Co. vs K.P. Kapur And Ors. on 5 December, 1996
5. First plea is that Shiv Charan, son of the claimant who appeared as
PW2 during the inquiry had admitted that he had received reimbursement of
the medical expenditure in the sum of `1,22,200/- from his employer in
terms of the health benefit scheme to which he was entitled. The contention
of insurance company is that the tribunal had wrongly declined to discount
the effect of the said imbursement by placing reliance on Dr. A. C. Mehra
vs. Behari Lal & Anr., I (1997) ACC 657, Oriental Insurance Company vs.
K. P. Kapur, I (1997) ACC 138 & Raghbir Singh vs. Harbans Kaur & Ors.,
1985 ACJ 676.