Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (1.79 seconds)
Divisional Manager vs Shivaji Bin Maruti Dalavi on 22 July, 2019 cites

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

22. As per the salary certificate, income of deceased Maruti Dalavi is held to be at Rs.19,214/-. PAN card and Service Book are also produced. Date of birth of the deceased Maruti Dalavi is found to be 01.06.1955 and age of the deceased was 57 years 10 months as on date of : 14 : accident. The deceased Maruti Dalavi had two years two months service as on the date of his death. Tribunal has deducted 1/4 t h towards his personal expenses having regard to the number of dependents of the deceased. The tribunal has rightly applied multiplier of "9" which is applicable to the age group persons 56 to 60 years, based on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121 (Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 20141 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

National Insurance Company Ltd vs Pranay Sethi Son Of Late Prashant Sethi ... on 20 April, 2011

32. However, we find that tribunal had erred by awarding a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to each of under petitioners under the head of 'loss of love and affection', Rs.2,00,000/- 'towards loss of consortium' to 4th petitioner; and Rs.30,000/- 'towards transportation of dead body and funeral expense'. As per the decision laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case under conventional head, wife - cross objector No.3 is entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Therefore on the above heads in all only Rs.70,000/- can be granted. As regards loss of love and affection to the other petitioners i.e., sons and mother of the deceased are concerned, an amount of Rs.40,000/- each is payable to them. Therefore, the cross objectors entitled compensation in all Rs.13,56,900/- under the following heads.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 10133 - K Kannan - Full Document

M/S Reliance General vs Shri M Jayalakshmamma on 20 September, 2017

28. Even in the Jayalakshmamma's case rendered by co-ordinate bench of this Court in MFA No.9661/2013 by relying on the decision of Puttamma and others Vs. K.L.Narayanareddy, split multiplier was not adopted though deceased was aged 57 years. Further in Narayan Reddy's case insurer had not taken such a contention : 18 : regarding application of split multiplier and as such it was not adopted. The overall conclusion and the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court would indicate that split multiplier should not be applied as a matter of Rule. There should be specific reasons for applying the same, we have assigned reasons. Therefore, we find that argument addressed by the cross-objectors cannot be accepted that split multiplier should not be applied.
Karnataka High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1