Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.24 seconds)
United India Insurance Company Ltd vs Ponniappan .. 1St on 23 June, 2017 cites

Mr. R.D. Hattangadi vs M/S Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 6 January, 1995

4. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376, R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467).
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 1698 - N P Singh - Full Document

Arvind Kumar Mishra vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr on 29 September, 2010

15. After the insertion of section 163A in the Act (with effect from 14.11.1994), if a claim for compensation is made under that section by an injured alleging disability, and if the quantum of loss of future earning claimed, falls under the second schedule to the Act, the Tribunal may have to apply the following principles laid down in Note (5) of the Second Schedule to the Act to determine compensation :
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 1045 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Rajkumar vs Ajay Kumar on 8 May, 2017

19. PW.2, Doctor, has assessed the functional disablement as 95% and Tribunal has fixed the same, as 35%. Taking note of the guidelines in Rajkumar's case (cited supra) and the evidence on record, we are not inclined to accept the decision of the appellant-Insurance Company and that there cannot be any further reduction, in the percentage of functional disability. After fixing the monthly income at Rs.7,500/-, loss of earning capacity is now estimated as Rs.7,08,750/- [Rs.11,250/- (Rs.7,500/- + Rs.3,750/-) x 12 x 15 x 35% Functional Disability).
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 28 - Full Document

C. K. Subramonia Iyer & Ors vs T. Kunhikuttan Nair And 6 Ors on 8 October, 1969

4. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376, R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467).
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 673 - K S Hegde - Full Document

Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd vs Ahmed Thambi on 3 August, 2006

21. Compensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded towards transportation, extra nourishment and miscellaneous expenditure is just and reasonable. However, compensation of Rs.20,000/- awarded towards attender charges is less and the same is enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. Considering the nature of injuries and CT Brain Report, marked as Ex.P12, the compensation of Rs.50,000/-, awarded under the head, pain and suffering, is less and the same is enhanced to Rs.75,000/-. Similarly, compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities is less. Loss of amenities as per the Full Bench decision of this Court in Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd., Kumbakonnam vs. Ahmed Thambi and others reported in 2006 (4) CTC 433, is as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 156 - Full Document
1   2 Next