Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (2.04 seconds)
Lalta Devi & Anr. vs Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co Ltd & Ors. on 12 January, 2015 cites

Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009

Sarla Verma (supra) related to the death of one Rajinder Prakash who had left behind his widow, three minor children apart from his parents and the grandfather. Obviously, the age of the deceased was taken into consideration for the purpose of selection of the multiplier as the deceased left behind a widow younger to him, apart from three minor children. It was not laid down as a proposition of law that irrespective of the age of the claimants, the age of the deceased is to be taken into consideration for selection of the multiplier for calculation of the loss of dependency.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 20141 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C vs Susamma Thomas on 6 January, 1993

As an example the multiplier taken in various cases such as in Susamma Thomas (supra), U.P. SRTC v. Trilok Chandara, (1996) 4 SCC 362 as clarified in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie, (2005) 10 SCC 720 and the multiplier as mentioned in Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act were compared and it was held that the multiplier as per Column No.4 in the said table was appropriate for application.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 4294 - G N Ray - Full Document

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation ... vs Trilok Chandra & Others on 7 May, 1996

It is true that in Mohd. Ameeruddin (supra 2) and P.S. Somanathan (supra 3) and National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Azad Singh (supra 5), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court applied the multiplier according to the age of the deceased, yet in view of Trilok Chandra (supra) and Shanti Pathak (supra) decided by the three Judges of the Supreme Court, the judgment in Mohd. Ameeruddin (supra 2), P.S. MAC APP. 189/2014 & 640/2014 Page 18 of 25 Somanathan (supra 3) and Azad Singh (supra 5) cannot be taken as a precedent for selection of the multiplier.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 1415 - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs S.K.Kapoor on 16 March, 2011

It is true that in Mohd. Ameeruddin (supra 2) and P.S. Somanathan (supra 3) and National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Azad Singh (supra 5), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court applied the multiplier according to the age of the deceased, yet in view of Trilok Chandra (supra) and Shanti Pathak (supra) decided by the three Judges of the Supreme Court, the judgment in Mohd. Ameeruddin (supra 2), P.S. MAC APP. 189/2014 & 640/2014 Page 18 of 25 Somanathan (supra 3) and Azad Singh (supra 5) cannot be taken as a precedent for selection of the multiplier.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 532 - Full Document

Abati Bezbaruah vs Dy. Director General Geological Survey ... on 14 February, 2003

"38. With regard to the addition to income for future prospects, in Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] , this Court has noted the earlier decisions in Susamma Thomas [Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 335] , Sarla Dixit[(1996) 3 SCC 179] and Abati Bezbaruah [Abati Bezbaruah v. Geological Survey of India, (2003) 3 SCC 148 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 746] and in para 24 of the Report held as under: (Sarla Verma case [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] , SCC p. 134) "24. ... In view of the imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an MAC APP. 189/2014 & 640/2014 Page 6 of 25 addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. (Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words „actual salary‟ should be read as „actual salary less tax‟). The addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no addition, where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardise the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculation being adopted. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments, etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances."
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 539 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Safiya Bee vs Mohd. Vajahath Hussain @ Fasi on 16 December, 2010

It is true that in Mohd. Ameeruddin (supra 2) and P.S. Somanathan (supra 3) and National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Azad Singh (supra 5), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court applied the multiplier according to the age of the deceased, yet in view of Trilok Chandra (supra) and Shanti Pathak (supra) decided by the three Judges of the Supreme Court, the judgment in Mohd. Ameeruddin (supra 2), P.S. MAC APP. 189/2014 & 640/2014 Page 18 of 25 Somanathan (supra 3) and Azad Singh (supra 5) cannot be taken as a precedent for selection of the multiplier.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 310 - C Joseph - Full Document

Central Board Of Dawoodi Bohra ... vs State Of Maharashtra&Anr on 17 December, 2004

(1) The law laid down by this Court in a decision delivered by a Bench of larger strength is binding on any subsequent Bench of lesser or coequal strength. (2) [Ed.: Para 12(2) corrected vide Official Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./21/2005 dated 3-3-2005.] A Bench of lesser quorum cannot disagree or dissent MAC APP. 189/2014 & 640/2014 Page 11 of 25 from the view of the law taken by a Bench of larger quorum. In case of doubt all that the Bench of lesser quorum can do is to invite the attention of the Chief Justice and request for the matter being placed for hearing before a Bench of larger quorum than the Bench whose decision has come up for consideration. It will be open only for a Bench of coequal strength to express an opinion doubting the correctness of the view taken by the earlier Bench of coequal strength, whereupon the matter may be placed for hearing before a Bench consisting of a quorum larger than the one which pronounced the decision laying down the law the correctness of which is doubted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 682 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Smt. Shanti Pathak And Ors on 10 July, 2007

It is true that in Mohd. Ameeruddin (supra 2) and P.S. Somanathan (supra 3) and National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Azad Singh (supra 5), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court applied the multiplier according to the age of the deceased, yet in view of Trilok Chandra (supra) and Shanti Pathak (supra) decided by the three Judges of the Supreme Court, the judgment in Mohd. Ameeruddin (supra 2), P.S. MAC APP. 189/2014 & 640/2014 Page 18 of 25 Somanathan (supra 3) and Azad Singh (supra 5) cannot be taken as a precedent for selection of the multiplier.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 504 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1   2 3 Next