Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.21 seconds)Section 173 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Kajal vs Jagdish Chand on 5 February, 2020
2025:KER:48379
21
M.A.C.A. No.75 of 2020 and
Cross Objection No.19 of 2024
11.1. I have already held that the facts in Kajal's case is
different from the factual matrix in this case. In the light of the
materials on record, this Court is unable to find that the claim
petitioner is in the same state as that of Kajal. However, it is seen
that due to the injuries sustained, he was unable to continue his job
and he had to give up the same. The certificates that are now
produced before this court show that he needs regular treatment and
continuous follow-up also. That being the position, I find that a
period of six years can be taken towards 'loss of earnings', which
would be ₹8,64,000/- (₹12,000/- x 72 months).
Bystander expenses
Raj Kumar vs Ajay Kumar & Anr on 18 October, 2010
In the light of Ext.X1 and applying the
test laid down in Raj Kumar (Supra), I find that the functional
disability can also be taken as 78%. As the disability is 78%, 40% of
the established income can be added towards loss of future prospects.
Hence, the amount of compensation would be ₹28,30,464/-
[(₹12,000 + 40%) x 12 x 18 x 78%].
Sr. Anthony @ Anthony Swamy vs Managing Director Ksrtc on 10 June, 2020
In this context it would be apposite to refer to the
dictum in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011)1 SCC 343 which has
been followed in Anthony Swami v. M.D., KSRTC, (2020)7 SCC
161 and in many other subsequent decisions, wherein the heads
under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases has
been explained:
1