Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.19 seconds)
Master Rahul S/O Sh. Ravi Nath vs ) Sh. Shailender Sharma S/O Sh. Gorakh ... on 1 December, 2010
cites
Sh. Subhash Chand S/O Sh. Prabhu Dayal vs Sh. Rulda Singh S/O Sh. Niranjan Singh ... on 12 February, 2007
Counsel for respondent no.4 cited the case law Subhash
Chand Vs. Rulda Singh, II (2007) ACC 776 (Delhi) and argued that
since the disability certificate does not point out what is the extent of
disability qua the whole body, so the loss of earning capacity of the
petitioner has to be taken at 10% and not at 25%. On the other hand
counsel for the petitioner argued that this disability is to be further
enhanced as left hand of the petitioner has become stiff and now he
cannot work with the same capacity and force from his left hand which
a normal person can do. It is also argued that stiffness of left hand
would effect the future of the petitioner and his earning capacity
permanently.
Devki Devi vs Anil Gupta And Anr. on 3 October, 2007
Counsel for the respondent no.4 cited case law Sarla
Verma versus DTC, III (2009) ACC 708 (Supreme Court) and
argued that no enhancement of income towards future prospectus has
to be given to the petitioner, so the notional income has to be taken as
it is. On the other hand, counsel for petitioner cited case law Smt.
Devki Devi Vs. Anil Gupta, MAC. APP.
Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
1