Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (3.65 seconds)
Mahesh & Ors. vs . Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.1 /74 on 30 January, 2021 cites

Raj Kumar vs Ajay Kumar & Anr on 18 October, 2010

74. As already discussed, the petitioner is shown to have sustained grievous injuries resulted into a disablement to the extent of 100% in relation to both eyes (cortical blindness) which has been duly proved by PW-3 Dr. Amesharwar Narayan, Dr. B.S.A. Hospital, Delhi. The doctor in his testimony has already testified that the petitioner was duly examined on the basis of the reports given by Gurunanak Eye Centre and that he can only feel that there is some light in any direction but cannot identity beyond that and cannot recognize MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.41 /74 the color. He further deposed that the petitioner is not able to see because he has suffered with 100% blindness. The said disability certificate was prepared on the directions of this Tribunal and was not controverted. The age of the petitioner at the time of the accident was admittedly 18 years as per matriculation certificate. Having regard to the percentage of loss of earning capacity in the light of severe injuries sustained by the petitioner Rahul @ Satish which has not only resulted into 100% disability in relation to both eyes (cortical blindness) but also made him virtually incapacitated in all respects due to accident, his functional disability is taken as 100% to the total disability of 100% which comes out to be 100% in relation to whole body. Reliance placed on Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343. The monthly income of the petitioner/injured at the time of the accident was Rs. 6448/- per month which annually comes to Rs. 77,376/-
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 3811 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Sangeeta Devi & Ors on 22 February, 2016

88. In view of the discussion and findings of this Tribunal on issue no. 1and 2, this Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.35,200/- (Rupees Thirty Five MACT No. 449710/16, 290/19, 289/19, 264/19, 602/18 and 603/18 Mahesh & Ors. Vs. Lal Baksh & Ors. Page No.49 /74 Thousand Two Hundred) qua petitioner no.1 Sh. Mahesh, Rs. 6,77,300/- (Rupees Six Lac Seventy Seven Thousand Three Hundred) qua petitioner no.2 Rahul, S/o Sh. Vinod, Rs. 1,29,700/- (One Lac Twenty Nine Thousand Seven Hundred) qua petitioner no.3 Rohit, Rs. 1,18,000/- (Rupees One Lac Eighteen Thousand) qua petitioner no.4 Sh. Vinod, Rs. 22,68,300/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lac Sixty Eight Thousand Three Hundred) qua petitioner no. 5 Rahul @ Satish including interim award, if any, alongwith interest @ 9% per annum AND against respondents (to be indemnified by the insurer) w.e.f. date of filing of the DAR/petition i.e 25.02.2011 till the date of its realization. Respondent no. 3/insurance company is directed to deposit the award with upto date interest within 30 days from today i.e. the date of passing the award. Reliance is placed on judgment "Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Devi & Ors., bearing MAC APP 165/2011 decided on 22.02.2016.
Delhi High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 1285 - R K Gauba - Full Document
1   2 Next