Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.31 seconds)General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C vs Susamma Thomas on 6 January, 1993
390/2011)
decided on 16.07.2012, referred to the reports of the Supreme Court in
General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation,
Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and Ors. (1994) 2 SCC 176,
Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav, (1996) 3 SCC 179, Bijoy Kumar Dugar v.
Bidya Dhar Dutta & Ors, (2006) 3 SCC 242, Sarla Verma & Ors. v.
Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Santosh Devi
v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., 2012 (4) SCALE 559 and
held that as per Santosh Devi even in the absence of any evidence as to
future prospects an increase of 30% in the income has to be provided
where the victim has fixed income or was a self employed person.
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Swaran Singh & Ors on 5 January, 2004
25. The purpose of Rule 3 of 1989 Rules is that a person with a learner's
licence is expected to drive a vehicle only for a purpose of learning, and
while learning how to drive a motor vehicle a holder of learner's licence
must be accompanied by an instructor so as to make an effective driving
licence to drive such vehicle. It is also the mandate of Rule 3 of the 1989
Rules that said instructor must be sitting in a position to control or stop
the vehicle in case of any necessity. The purpose of making this Rule is
MAC APP Nos.287/2012 & 472/2012 Page 11 of 15
to ensure safety of not only the learner but also of other persons using the
road. Thus, a person holding a learner's licence if not accompanied by an
instructor as laid down in Rule 3(b) of 1989 Rules would not be holding a
valid licence in consonance with the Supreme Court judgment in Swaran
Singh where it was laid down that the vehicle must be driven by a learner
subject to the conditions mentioned in the licence and only then he will
be treated as a person who is duly licensed. The Claims Tribunal dealt
with the issue of liability at great length and held that the Appellant
(owner) was not accompanied by any instructor at the time of accident.
This was the reason that the Appellant although in possession of learner's
licence was prosecuted for not possessing a valid driving licence under
Rule 3 of 1989 Rules but also under Section 18 of the Act apart from
facing prosecution under Section 279/304A IPC. The Claims Tribunal on
the issue of liability, observed as under:
Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009
390/2011)
decided on 16.07.2012, referred to the reports of the Supreme Court in
General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation,
Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and Ors. (1994) 2 SCC 176,
Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav, (1996) 3 SCC 179, Bijoy Kumar Dugar v.
Bidya Dhar Dutta & Ors, (2006) 3 SCC 242, Sarla Verma & Ors. v.
Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Santosh Devi
v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., 2012 (4) SCALE 559 and
held that as per Santosh Devi even in the absence of any evidence as to
future prospects an increase of 30% in the income has to be provided
where the victim has fixed income or was a self employed person.
Sunil Sharma& Ors vs Bachitar Singh & Ors on 7 February, 2011
19. A compensation of `50,000/- awarded towards loss of love and affection
was on the higher side. The Supreme Court in Sunil Sharma v. Bachitar
Singh (2011) 11 SCC 425 and in Baby Radhika Gupta v. Oriental
Insurance Company Limited (2009) 17 SCC 627 granted ` 25,000/- only
(in total to all the claimants) under the head of loss of love and affection.
Thus, I would reduce the compensation under this head to `25,000/- only.
Baby Radhika Gupta & Ors vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors on 24 November, 2009
19. A compensation of `50,000/- awarded towards loss of love and affection
was on the higher side. The Supreme Court in Sunil Sharma v. Bachitar
Singh (2011) 11 SCC 425 and in Baby Radhika Gupta v. Oriental
Insurance Company Limited (2009) 17 SCC 627 granted ` 25,000/- only
(in total to all the claimants) under the head of loss of love and affection.
Thus, I would reduce the compensation under this head to `25,000/- only.