Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.40 seconds)Uttam Kumar (Deceased) vs Madhav And Anr. on 27 March, 2002
14. Learned counsel for the Appellant places reliance on the Full Bench
decision of the Karnataka High Court in Uttam Kumar v. Madhav & Anr.
2002 ACJ 1828. In the said case one Uttam Kumar sustained injuries in a
motor vehicle accident on 07.01.1995. On a Petition filed by said Uttam
Kumar, a compensation of `36,250/- was awarded. He preferred an
Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. Unfortunately, he died
during pendency of the Appeal on 25.12.1999 and his legal
MAC APP 877/2010 & 49/2011 Page 7 of 16
representatives were substituted.
Section 110A in Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 [Entire Act]
V. Mepherson And Anr. vs Shiv Charan Singh And Ors. on 7 October, 1996
15. The Delhi High Court in V. Mepherson and Anr. v. Shiv Charan Singh &
Ors. 1 (1998) ACC 6 relied on a judgment of Punjab and Haryana High
Court in Joti Ram & Ors. v. Chaman Lal & Ors. 1984 ACJ 645 and held
that in a Claim for damages for injuries suffered by a deceased, the Claim
so far as it relates to non-pecuniary damages, i.e. pain and suffering etc.
suffered by the injured would abate on the death of the injured. The right
to sue would survive in case of the pecuniary damages which could be on
account of special diet, purchase of medicines, conveyance, etc.
Joti Ram And Ors. vs Chaman Lal And Ors. on 16 July, 1984
15. The Delhi High Court in V. Mepherson and Anr. v. Shiv Charan Singh &
Ors. 1 (1998) ACC 6 relied on a judgment of Punjab and Haryana High
Court in Joti Ram & Ors. v. Chaman Lal & Ors. 1984 ACJ 645 and held
that in a Claim for damages for injuries suffered by a deceased, the Claim
so far as it relates to non-pecuniary damages, i.e. pain and suffering etc.
suffered by the injured would abate on the death of the injured. The right
to sue would survive in case of the pecuniary damages which could be on
account of special diet, purchase of medicines, conveyance, etc.
Santosh Devi vs National Insurance Co.Ltd.& Ors on 23 April, 2012
25. The deceased was a self-employed person and was working as a
contractor mainly for Indian Railways and Indian Oil Corporation. The
Claimants would be entitled to an addition of 30% on account of
inflation/future prospects on the basis of judgment in Santosh Devi v.
National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., 2012 (4) SCALE 559. There
would be a liability of income tax of `55,000/- on its earlier stated
income. Considering that there were three dependents, the loss of
dependency would come to `31,00,066/- (3,10,500/- - 55,000/- (income
tax) + 30% x 2/3 x 14).
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Bimla Devi & Ors vs Himachal Road Transport Corpn. & Ors on 15 April, 2009
In Bimla Devi and Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and
Ors., (2009) 13 SC 530, while holding that in a Petition under Section
166 of the Act for award of compensation, the negligence has to be
proved on the touchstone of preponderance of probability, in para 15, it
was observed as under:-
Parmeshwari vs Amir Chand & Ors on 28 January, 2011
11. The observations of the Supreme Court in Bimla Devi were referred with
approval in a later judgment in Parmeshwari Devi v. Amir Chand and
Ors., (2011) 11 SCC 635.
1