Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.29 seconds)
The New India Assurance Company Ltd., ... vs Reena Shukla And Ors on 6 February, 2023 cites

K. Suresh vs New India Assurance Co.Ltd & Anr on 19 October, 2012

In K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 12 SCC 274 : (2013) 2 SCC (Civ) 279 : (2013) 4 SCC (Cri) 638], this Court held as follows : (SCC p. 276, para 2) "2. ... There cannot be actual compensation for anguish of the heart or for mental tribulations. The quintessentiality lies in the pragmatic computation of the loss sustained which has to be in the realm of realistic approximation. Therefore, Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity "the Act") stipulates that there should be grant of "just compensation". Thus, it becomes a challenge for a court of law to determine "just compensation" which is neither a bonanza nor a windfall, and simultaneously, should not be a pittance." ************************ Loss of earnings
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 236 - D Misra - Full Document

Nagarajappa vs Divnl.Manager,Oriental Ins.Co.Ld on 11 April, 2011

35. Under these circumstances, when the High Court assessed the physical disability of the appellant at 25% of the whole body, the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not concur with the same and found that the compensation granted towards loss of future earnings on account of disability at Rs.2,31,000/- was grossly inadequate and the compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards future medical expenses and only Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities were also found inadequate. The Hon'ble Supreme Court thereafter once again reviewed the case laws and after recording the judgments in the case of Raj Kumar (supra) and in the case of Nagarajappa versus Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in (2011) 13 SCC 323 affirmed those judgments. The Hon'ble Supreme Court thereafter modified the judgment and award and proceeded to allow the compensation which may be reproduced hereunder for proper appreciation of the heads under which the compensations are required to be allowed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 51 - Full Document

National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi on 31 October, 2017

In the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680], this Court has held that the benefit of future prospects should not be confined only to those who have a permanent job and would extend to self-employed individuals. In the case of a self-employed person, an addition of 40% of the established income should be made where the age of the victim at the time of the accident was below 40 years. Hence, in the present case, the appellant would be entitled to an enhancement of Rs. 2400 towards loss of future prospects.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 9815 - D Misra - Full Document

Parminder Singh vs New India Assurance Company Ltd. on 1 July, 2019

10. The recent decision in Parminder Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.15, involved an accident victim who underwent surgery for hemiplegia16. According to the treating medic, he could not work as a labourer or perform any agricultural work, or work as a driver (as he was wont to); the assessment of his disability was at 75%, and of a permanent nature. The court held that:
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 151 - I Malhotra - Full Document
1   2 Next