Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.24 seconds)
Sh. Pramod Mishra vs ) Mr. Rakesh Kumar S/O Sh. Inder Dass on 2 February, 2011 cites

B.T.Krishnappa vs D.M.,United Insurace Co.Ltd.& Anr on 30 April, 2010

Counsel for petitioner cited case law B.T. Krishanappa vs. D.M. United Insurance Co. Ltd. AIR 2010 SC 2630 and argued to treat disability of petitioner as 100%. However, this judgment can be distinguished from the present facts and circumstances because in the cited case the injured was working as meson and it was found that he could not sit cross leg, squat, could not lift any weight or climb the stairs without support and his leg was shortened by 3.5 cms. In this matter the Supreme Court treated 48% disability of a lower limb as equivalent disability in respect of whole body. However, in the present case no such evidence has brought on record which -5- point out that petitioner now cannot work, move or squat and has become totally crippled. PW-2 the concerned doctor has also specifically stated that 56% disability is in relation to a particular limb and not in respect of the whole body. Accordingly, I am of the view that the extent of disability qua the whole body is to be treated as 25% only.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Bimla vs Gopal & Ors on 22 March, 2010

As no deduction from income has to be taken towards personal expenses in case of injury as per decision of Delhi High Court in Bimla vs. Gopal MAC. APP no. 1028/2006 decided on 22-3-2010 so the total loss of future income or earning capacity comes to Rs. 2,53,152 as per the formula (Rs. 5,274 x 12 x 16 x 25%). Accordingly petitioner is granted loss of future income at Rs. 2,53,152/-.
Delhi High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 89 - J R Midha - Full Document

Savitri & Ors vs Mohan Singh & Ors on 20 October, 2010

The permanent disability is treated at par with the death in order to calculate the amount of compensation in accordance with the extent of disability qua whole body. Petitioner was selling juice and was a self employed person and thus as per various judgment of our own High Court, future prospects has to be given to him. Otherwise also minimum wages chart shows that it is increased from time to time almost after every six months. Judicial notice has to be taken that due to inflation and rise in price index, minimum wages get double over a period of 10 years. Thus while relying upon the decisions of Delhi High Court given in cases Savitri vs. Mohan Singh MAC.
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 6 - J R Midha - Full Document
1