Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.35 seconds)The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009
26. According to the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2009 LawSuit (SC) 613 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 LawSuit (SC) 1093, due to being employed and being of 40 ½ years of age, 30% shall be added towards future loss of income to the income of the deceased as per the aforesaid decisions.
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi on 31 October, 2017
In this way, claimants shall get Rs.1,10,000/- under the head of non pecuniary damages as per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra).
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Mannat Johal on 23 April, 2019
29. As far as issue of rate of interest is concerned, it should be 7.5% in view of the latest decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mannat Johal and Others, 2019 (2) T.A.C. 705 (S.C.) wherein the Apex Court has held as under:
Anita Sharma vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. on 8 December, 2020
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anita Sharma and Others Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Another, 2020 (0) Supreme (SC) 704 has held that learned Tribunal is not required to adopt the standard of proof as is adopted in criminal trials. Learned Tribunal is required to decide the claim petitions on touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and certainly not on the basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt. In such matters, learned Tribunal should take holistic view of the matter on the basis of evidence available on record. Learned Tribunal has rightly concluded that truck in question was involved in the accident, hence, on this point we confirm the finding of learned Tribunal.
Smt. Sudesna And Others vs Hari Singh And Another on 26 November, 2020
The aforesaid view has been reiterated by this High Court in Review Application No.1 of 2020 in First Appeal From Order No.23 of 2001 (Smt. Sudesna and others Vs. Hari Singh and another) and in First Appeal From Order No.2871 of 2016 (Tej Kumari Sharma v. Chola Mandlam M.S. General Insurance Co. Ltd.) decided on 19.3.2021 while disbursing the amount.
Smt. Tej Kumari Sharma And 4 Others vs Chola Mandlam M.S. General Insurance ... on 19 March, 2021
The aforesaid view has been reiterated by this High Court in Review Application No.1 of 2020 in First Appeal From Order No.23 of 2001 (Smt. Sudesna and others Vs. Hari Singh and another) and in First Appeal From Order No.2871 of 2016 (Tej Kumari Sharma v. Chola Mandlam M.S. General Insurance Co. Ltd.) decided on 19.3.2021 while disbursing the amount.
Smt. Hansaguri Prafulchandra Ladhani ... vs The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. And ... on 4 October, 2006
In view of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Smt. Hansagori P. Ladhani v/s The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2007(2) GLH 291 and this High Court in total amount of interest, accrued on the principal amount of compensation is to be apportioned on financial year to financial year basis and if the interest payable to claimant for any financial year exceeds Rs.50,000/-, insurance company/owner is/are entitled to deduct appropriate amount under the head of 'Tax Deducted at Source' as provided u/s 194A (3) (ix) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and if the amount of interest does not exceeds Rs.50,000/- in any financial year, registry of this Tribunal is directed to allow the claimants to withdraw the amount without producing the certificate from the concerned Income- Tax Authority.
Vimal Kanwar & Ors vs Kishore Dan & Ors on 3 May, 2013
25. In our opinion, city compensatory allowance and house rent allowance are not deductable component from the salary because these are allowance, which were used for the benefit of family also. Salary certificate of the deceased is on record, which shows that gross salary of the deceased was Rs.78,658/- deduction for provident fund/G.P.F. of Rs.4924 and income tax of Rs.10,000/- are shown in salary certificate. In our opinion deduction towards Provident Fund/G.P.F. is made from salary, hence, it is to be included in the salary for the purpose of computation. Only the income tax of Rs.10,000/- shall be deducted from gross salary. Hence, for the purpose of computation of salary, the income will be assessed Rs. 78,658-10,000 = Rs.68,658 and learned Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards future loss of income. The learned counsel for the appellant has also relied on the decision in Vimal Kanwar and Others Vs. Kishore An and Others, 2013 (3) T.A.C. 6 (SC).