Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.25 seconds)Mukund Dewangan vs Oriental Ins.Co.Ltd on 11 February, 2016
15. It is required to be noted here that the petition is
filed under Section 166 of the MV Act. The claimant was
travelling by sitting on the load of stone crush powder and as
the trailer over-turned, the claimant also fell down and as a
result, the wheel of the Trailer ran over the thigh of the
claimant. Though the Tribunal has considered the fact
regarding the driver was not possessing valid and effective
driving licence as on the date of accident, but however, that
point may not be relevant in view of the decision rendered by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 2017 SC 3668 (Mukund
Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited), as
the tractor is a Light Motor Vehicle and it makes no difference
as to whether it was a transport vehicle or not.
The Divisional Manager, New India ... vs Abdul Sammad Chellappa And Ors. on 29 October, 1990
21. The claimant is aged 25 years as on the date of
accident and as such, the multiplier '18' is applicable and the
claimant has sustained 100% functional disability. Apart from
that, since the claimant is virtually crippled because of
amputation of his one leg, as such, he cannot carry-out his
regular avocation as before, so as to consider reduction in the
income. Hence, in view of the decision of a Division Bench of
this Court reported in MFA No.103807/2016 c/w. MFA
103835/2016 decided on 27.05.2022 (New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Abdul and others), the
compensation under the Loss of Future Prospects is required to
be added. Therefore, considering the age of claimant, 40% of
his income is required to added and as such, the income of
claimant would work-out Rs.9,100/- p.m. As such, the
compensation under the head of Loss of Future Income would
be Rs.19,65,600/- (Rs.9,100x12x18).
Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Sanna Kariyappa & Sanna Kariyanna on 2 June, 2011
3. However, the trailer cannot move independently and it is
attached to the tractor and the owners of both tractor-trailer
are responsible to the extent of 50:50, as per the decision of
11
this Court in MFA No.2152/2006 (WC) [M/s. United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sanna Tayanna and others]
decided on 01.09.2015.
1