Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.24 seconds)
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sairam S/O Manjunath Narasinganavar on 13 September, 2023
cites
Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Kajal vs Jagdish Chand on 5 February, 2020
20. During the course of argument, the learned counsel
for the appellant has produced the appellant before the Court
on the wheel-chair and we have examined the condition of the
claimant. On physical examination of the claimant and also
the evidence on record, and keeping in mind the decision of
KAJAL (supra), we are of the considered opinion that the
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Subhagwanti & Others(With Connected ... on 24 February, 1966
"24. This Court has reaffirmed the multiplier
method in various cases like Municipal Corporation of
Delhi v. Subhagwati 10 1971 AC 115 and Ors.11, U.P.
State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. v. Trilok
Chandra and Ors.12, Sandeep Khanduja v. Atul Dande
and Ors.13. This Court has also recognised that
Schedule II of the Act can be used as a guide for the
multiplier to be applied in each case. Keeping the
claimant's age in mind, the multiplier in this case should
be 18 as opposed to 44 taken by the High Court.
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation ... vs Trilok Chandra & Others on 7 May, 1996
"24. This Court has reaffirmed the multiplier
method in various cases like Municipal Corporation of
Delhi v. Subhagwati 10 1971 AC 115 and Ors.11, U.P.
State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. v. Trilok
Chandra and Ors.12, Sandeep Khanduja v. Atul Dande
and Ors.13. This Court has also recognised that
Schedule II of the Act can be used as a guide for the
multiplier to be applied in each case. Keeping the
claimant's age in mind, the multiplier in this case should
be 18 as opposed to 44 taken by the High Court.
Sandeep Khanuja vs Atul Dande & Anr on 2 February, 2017
"24. This Court has reaffirmed the multiplier
method in various cases like Municipal Corporation of
Delhi v. Subhagwati 10 1971 AC 115 and Ors.11, U.P.
State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. v. Trilok
Chandra and Ors.12, Sandeep Khanduja v. Atul Dande
and Ors.13. This Court has also recognised that
Schedule II of the Act can be used as a guide for the
multiplier to be applied in each case. Keeping the
claimant's age in mind, the multiplier in this case should
be 18 as opposed to 44 taken by the High Court.
Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009
NC: 2023:KHC-D:10580-DB
MFA No.101028 of 2021
C/W MFA No.102221 of 2020
permanent physical disability of the claimant to the whole
body is to be taken at 100%. Considering the evidence
placed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has rightly assessed,
the income of the claimant at Rs.9,000/- per month. As per
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS v. DELHI TRANSPORT
CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER reported in (2009)6
SCC 121 the considering the age of the claimant, the
appropriate multiplier would be 18 and the Tribunal has
rightly applied the same.
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Pranay Sethi And Others on 22 June, 2022
As per the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED v. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported
in AIR 2017 SC 5157 40% is to be added to the income
towards future prospects. If that is added, the loss of future
earning would come to Rs.27,21,600/- (Rs.12,600/- x 12 x
1