Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.25 seconds)

Kajal vs Jagdish Chand on 5 February, 2020

16. As rightly held by the learned Single Judge in the above judgement, that was a case where the accident had taken place during the year 2006 and therefore, that judgement cannot continue to be applied mechanically for all future cases irrespective of the passage of time. That is the reason why, the learned single Judge took note of the latest judgement of the Apex Court in [Kajal Vs. Jagadish Chand] reported in 2020 4 SCC 413. In that case, the victim girl was aged about 12 years and the Apex Court had fixed the compensation at Rs.62,27,000/-. The 13/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.1328 of 2023 and 50 of 2021 learned Single Judge had also taken into account the judgement of the Apex Court in [sidram Vs. Divisional manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd and another] reported in 2022 (2) TNMAC 737 (SC) and held that the process of determining the compensation involves approximation and in any case, disability can never be assessed in terms of money since the 'money cannot renew a physical frame that has been battered. In that case, the learned Single Judge was dealing with a claimant, who was only aged about 9 years where the notional monthly income was fixed at Rs.9,000/-and the same was confirmed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 241 - D Gupta - Full Document

Sidram vs The Divisional Manager United India ... on 16 November, 2022

15. The Hon’be Supreme Court in its verdict reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 968 (Sidram vs. The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co.Ltd., and Anr.) has held that the process of determining compensation by the Court is essentially a very difficult task and can never be an exact science. Perfect compensation is hardly possible, more so claims of injury and disability point out that ‘money cannot renew a physical frame that has been battered.’ and appreciate the fixation of compensation applying multiplier on notional income. Therefore, this Court holds that the Tribunal has not erred in awarding compensation of Rs.20,41,200/- to the claimant towards loss of earning capacity by taking notional income of Rs.9,000/- with 40% prospectus and multiplier 18. There is no dispute in respect of other compensation awarded in other heads. In the above facts and circumstances, the award passed by the Tribunal need not be interfered and thus this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails. 12/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.1328 of 2023 and 50 of 2021
Supreme Court of India Cites 50 - Cited by 44 - S Kant - Full Document

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Minor Soundarya on 26 October, 2018

14. On perusal of judgment of the Tribunal, it is clear that before the Tribunal both sides relied on citations. The Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2019 (1) TNMAC 197 (The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., vs. Minor Soundarya) and 2019 (1) TNMAC 18 (Mohammed Babu vs. MGM Travels, Chennai), wherein an 8 years old minor victim was awarded compensation by taking notional income of Rs.10,000/- p.m. adding 40% towards future prospects. In this case, the minor petitioner is aged 9 years old, whose right hand was crushed and the Medical Board assessed permanent disability at 75%.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 4 - N Kirubakaran - Full Document

Mohammed Babu vs ) Mgm Travels on 4 October, 2018

14. On perusal of judgment of the Tribunal, it is clear that before the Tribunal both sides relied on citations. The Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2019 (1) TNMAC 197 (The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., vs. Minor Soundarya) and 2019 (1) TNMAC 18 (Mohammed Babu vs. MGM Travels, Chennai), wherein an 8 years old minor victim was awarded compensation by taking notional income of Rs.10,000/- p.m. adding 40% towards future prospects. In this case, the minor petitioner is aged 9 years old, whose right hand was crushed and the Medical Board assessed permanent disability at 75%.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - R Subramanian - Full Document
1