Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.35 seconds)
Rajbala vs Mukesh Chand on 16 August, 2023 cites

Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. vs Jaibir Singh & Ors. on 8 January, 2021

100. A sum of Rs.3,35,323/- along with the interest on this amount is directed to be released into the MACT Saving Bank Account of the petitioner Nepal Singh and remaining amount of Rs.10,00,000/- along with interest on this amount is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in the form of 80 monthly FDRs (fixed deposit receipts) to be prepared in the name of petitioner, payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 80 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.2018 in FAO No. 84/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Others v. Jaibir Singh & Others. The amount of FDRs on maturity would directly be released automatically in petitioner's MACT Saving Bank Account.
Delhi High Court Cites 64 - Cited by 1363 - J R Midha - Full Document

Sandeep Khanuja vs Atul Dande & Anr on 2 February, 2017

76. Moreover, the law has been well settled by the decisions of Supreme Court in the cases of Sandeep Khanuja (supra) and Erudhaya Priya vs. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine SC 601, that while applying the multiplier method, future prospects on advancement in life and career are also to be taken into consideration. Thus, considering the petitioner as a self-employed, belonging to the age group of 50-60, an addition of income to the extent of 10% towards future prospects has to be counted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 168 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Erudhaya Priya vs State Express Transport Corporation ... on 27 July, 2020

76. Moreover, the law has been well settled by the decisions of Supreme Court in the cases of Sandeep Khanuja (supra) and Erudhaya Priya vs. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine SC 601, that while applying the multiplier method, future prospects on advancement in life and career are also to be taken into consideration. Thus, considering the petitioner as a self-employed, belonging to the age group of 50-60, an addition of income to the extent of 10% towards future prospects has to be counted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 355 - S K Kaul - Full Document

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

In case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr. (2011) 1 SCC 343, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India determined the broad criteria for assessment of permanent disability for ascertaining the purpose of future loss of earning and also laid down step by step procedure for assessment of disability and for ascertainment to the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity. Relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 3811 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

National Insurance Company Ltd vs Pranay Sethi And Others on 22 June, 2022

In case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), a compensation of Rs.40,000/-, 15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively has been fixed on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses and further, it is required to be enhanced @ 10% in every three years. Therefore, a compensation of Rs.44,000/-, 16,500/- and Rs.16,500/- respectively on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses is required to be granted.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1946 - J R Dua - Full Document
1   2 3 Next