Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.29 seconds)The Indian Penal Code, 1860
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Arvind Kumar Mishra vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr on 29 September, 2010
In our view, the principles laid down in Arvind Kumar Mishra vs. New
India Assurance Company Ltd. (supra) and Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar
(supra) must be followed by all the Tribunals and the High Court in determining the
quantum of compensation payable to the victims of accident, who are disabled
either permanently or temporarily. If the victim of the accident suffers permanent
disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not
only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the loss of earning and his
inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but
for the disability caused due to the accident".
Nizam'S Institute Of Medical Sciences vs Prasanth S.Dhananka & Ors on 14 May, 2009
In Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S.
Dhananka MANU/SC/0803/2009: (2009)6 SCC 1, the three-Judge Bench was
dealing with a case arising out of the complaint filed under the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986. While enhancing the compensation awarded by the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission from Rs. 15 lakhs to Rs. 1 crore, the
Bench made the following observations which can appropriately be applied for
deciding the petitions filed under Section 166 of the Act:
Reshma Kumari & Ors vs Madan Mohan & Anr on 23 July, 2009
In Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan Manu/SC/1303/2009: (2009)
13 SCC 422, this Court reiterated that the compensation awarded under the Act
should be just and also identified the factors which should be kept in mind while
determining the amount of compensation. The relevant portions of the Judgment
are extracted below:
Raj Kumar vs Ajay Kumar & Anr on 18 October, 2010
In Raj Kumar V. Ajay Kumar Manu/SC/1018/2010: (2011) 1 SCC
343, the court considered some of the precedents and held:
Sajha & Ors vs National Insurance Co Ltd & Ors on 19 August, 2009
14 Further Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Sajha Vs. National Insurance Co.
2010 ACJ 627 and New India Assurance Co. Vs. Raja Ram MAC. APP. No.
175/06 decided on 25.8.2009 held that keeping in view the trend of increase of
minimum wages of non-matriculate from time to time and rises in price index and
inflation, it can be said that minimum wages of unskilled worker would get almost
double over a period of next ten years and thus future prospects should be given
upon minimum wages also. Thus applying the formula given in this judgment, the
monthly income of the petitioner can be held at Rs. 5205/-. (3470 + 50%).
Raviraj Udupa vs M/S. United India Ins. Co.Ltd. And Ors on 16 August, 2011
15 As per the disability certificate Ex. PW1/18 proved on record, the petitioner
suffered 20 % permanent physical disability in relation to his fracture of both
bones of right leg and subsequent to this injury the petitioner/injured developed
great toe drop due to paralysis of extensor halucis longus bone and implant
reaction. The injured suffered permanent disability of about 20% of right lower limb
and due to this he was unable to walk without use of orchosis. He is not working
properly because being not capable of working and in that very nature of the things
the functional disability is 100% more than 80% physical disability. Hence disability
on injured in relation to right lower limb to the extent of 20%, is assessed to 100%
functional disability. Counsel for the petitioner has cited judgment passed by
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India titled as Raviraj Udupa Vs United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others 2012 ACJ 286 decided on 16.08.2011. It is
the claim of the petitioner that at the time of accident he was about 34 years of age
with good health and physique and was earning a handsome income per month but
due to said accident the injured lost his income and got 20% physical disability
which amounts to complete functional disability of 100%, permanent disability.
Moreover, he spent on his treatment and the same is still going on. His job profile
has also been hampered/affected badly due to this accident. He is having his family
15
to look after. He is still spending on his treatment and compelled to travel by auto or
taxi to cover the distance and the said expenses will be a permanent expenses in
future. The life of the petitioner has become hell due to the conduct of respondent
No.1 & 2 besides severe economic loss. The income of petitioner has also affected
and he would not be able to live a normal life.
Bimla vs Gopal & Ors on 22 March, 2010
17 As no deduction from income has to be taken towards personal
expenses in case of injury as per decision of Delhi High Court in Bimla Vs. Gopal
MAC. APP No. 1028/2006 decided on 22.3.2010 so the total loss of future
income or earning capacity comes to Rs. 1,99,872/- as per the formula (5205 X 12
X 16 X 20%). Accordingly petitioner is granted loss of future income at Rs.
1,99,872/-.