Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.27 seconds)Smt Sarla Dixit & Anr vs Balwant Yadav & Ors on 29 February, 1996
8. The learned Single Judge of the High Court further
referred to Rules 29, 44 and 46 of the Rules which are
statutory in nature which require the electricity
authorities to conduct periodical inspection of the
lines maintained by them and to take all such safety
measures to prevent accident and maintain the lines in
such a manner that life and property of the general
public is protected. The learned Single Judge has
considered the position of law declared by this Court
in catena of cases for awarding compensation,
particularly, the electrocution cases, and held the
principle of “strict liability” and consequential
negligence in awarding compensation in favour of the
claimant against the State Electricity Board. This
5
Court and the various High Courts such as High Courts
of Madras, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Kerala and Gujarat
have awarded compensation to the victims of
electrocution in exercise of the extraordinary and
appellate jurisdiction, and have held that the
Electricity Board Supply Companies are duty bound to
take precautionary measures under the provisions of the
Act. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has held the
electricity authority - the first respondent to be
liable to pay the compensation to the claimant
irrespective of the fact that the harm could have been
avoided by the consumer by taking precautionary
measures. The learned Single Judge of the High Court
has referred to various judgments of this Court as well
as the aforesaid High Courts rendered under the Motor
Vehicles Act for determination and awarding just and
reasonable compensation in favour of the claimant, viz.
General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport
Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas and Ors.1,
Sarla Dixit and Anr. v. Balwant Yadav & Ors.2, U.P.
State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. v. Trilok
1 (1994) 2 SCC 176
2 (1996) 3 SCC 179
6
Chandra & Ors.3, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
v. Patricia Jean Mahajan & Ors.4 and Abati Bezbaruah v.
Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India &
Anr.5 by applying the multiplier method as specified in
the schedule of the M.V. Act.
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation ... vs Trilok Chandra & Others on 7 May, 1996
8. The learned Single Judge of the High Court further
referred to Rules 29, 44 and 46 of the Rules which are
statutory in nature which require the electricity
authorities to conduct periodical inspection of the
lines maintained by them and to take all such safety
measures to prevent accident and maintain the lines in
such a manner that life and property of the general
public is protected. The learned Single Judge has
considered the position of law declared by this Court
in catena of cases for awarding compensation,
particularly, the electrocution cases, and held the
principle of “strict liability” and consequential
negligence in awarding compensation in favour of the
claimant against the State Electricity Board. This
5
Court and the various High Courts such as High Courts
of Madras, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Kerala and Gujarat
have awarded compensation to the victims of
electrocution in exercise of the extraordinary and
appellate jurisdiction, and have held that the
Electricity Board Supply Companies are duty bound to
take precautionary measures under the provisions of the
Act. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has held the
electricity authority - the first respondent to be
liable to pay the compensation to the claimant
irrespective of the fact that the harm could have been
avoided by the consumer by taking precautionary
measures. The learned Single Judge of the High Court
has referred to various judgments of this Court as well
as the aforesaid High Courts rendered under the Motor
Vehicles Act for determination and awarding just and
reasonable compensation in favour of the claimant, viz.
General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport
Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas and Ors.1,
Sarla Dixit and Anr. v. Balwant Yadav & Ors.2, U.P.
State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. v. Trilok
1 (1994) 2 SCC 176
2 (1996) 3 SCC 179
6
Chandra & Ors.3, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
v. Patricia Jean Mahajan & Ors.4 and Abati Bezbaruah v.
Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India &
Anr.5 by applying the multiplier method as specified in
the schedule of the M.V. Act.
Abati Bezbaruah vs Dy. Director General Geological Survey ... on 14 February, 2003
8. The learned Single Judge of the High Court further
referred to Rules 29, 44 and 46 of the Rules which are
statutory in nature which require the electricity
authorities to conduct periodical inspection of the
lines maintained by them and to take all such safety
measures to prevent accident and maintain the lines in
such a manner that life and property of the general
public is protected. The learned Single Judge has
considered the position of law declared by this Court
in catena of cases for awarding compensation,
particularly, the electrocution cases, and held the
principle of “strict liability” and consequential
negligence in awarding compensation in favour of the
claimant against the State Electricity Board. This
5
Court and the various High Courts such as High Courts
of Madras, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Kerala and Gujarat
have awarded compensation to the victims of
electrocution in exercise of the extraordinary and
appellate jurisdiction, and have held that the
Electricity Board Supply Companies are duty bound to
take precautionary measures under the provisions of the
Act. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has held the
electricity authority - the first respondent to be
liable to pay the compensation to the claimant
irrespective of the fact that the harm could have been
avoided by the consumer by taking precautionary
measures. The learned Single Judge of the High Court
has referred to various judgments of this Court as well
as the aforesaid High Courts rendered under the Motor
Vehicles Act for determination and awarding just and
reasonable compensation in favour of the claimant, viz.
General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport
Corporation, Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas and Ors.1,
Sarla Dixit and Anr. v. Balwant Yadav & Ors.2, U.P.
State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. v. Trilok
1 (1994) 2 SCC 176
2 (1996) 3 SCC 179
6
Chandra & Ors.3, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
v. Patricia Jean Mahajan & Ors.4 and Abati Bezbaruah v.
Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India &
Anr.5 by applying the multiplier method as specified in
the schedule of the M.V. Act.
Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009
17. The learned Single Judge of the High Court has
awarded compensation keeping all these aspects of the
matter and has applied the guiding principle of
multiplier method after adverting to the case of Sarla
Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr6. for
the purpose of computation of just and reasonable
6 (2009) 6 SCC 121
14
compensation in favour of the appellant which method
should not have been applied to the case on hand,
particularly, having regard to the statutory negligence
on the part of the respondents in not providing the
safety measures to see that live electric wires should
not fall on the roof of the building by strictly
following the Rules to protect the lives of the public
in the residential area.
Balram Prasad vs Kunal Saha & Ors on 24 October, 2013
In the said
decision, it has been held at para 53
that to deny a legitimate claim or to
restrict arbitrarily the size of an
award would amount to substantial
injustice to the claimant.
Reshma Kumari & Ors vs Madan Mohan & Anr on 23 July, 2009
In Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan
[(2009) 13 SCC 422] this Court reiterated
that the compensation awarded under
the Act should be just and also
identified the factors which should
be kept in mind while determining the
amount of compensation. The relevant
portions of the judgment are
extracted below:
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Jashuben & Ors on 14 February, 2008
101. …………………….. he has also strongly placed
reliance upon the observations made at para
170 in Malay Kumar Ganguly’s case referred to
supra wherein this Court has made
observations as thus: (SCC p. 282)
“170. Indisputably, grant of
compensation involving an accident is
within the realm of law of torts. It
is based on the principle of
restitutio in integrum. The said
principle provides that a person
entitled to damages should, as nearly
as possible, get that sum of money
which would put him in the same
position as he would have been if he
had not sustained the wrong.
Nizam'S Institute Of Medical Sciences vs Prasanth S.Dhananka & Ors on 14 May, 2009
112. The claimant has also placed reliance
upon Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences v.
Prasanth S.Dhananka’s [(2009) 2 SCC 688] case
in support of his submission that if a case
is made out, then the Court must not be chary
of awarding adequate compensation. The
relevant paragraph reads as under:
Rekha Jain vs Natioanl Insurance Co.Ltd. & Ors on 1 August, 2013
18. Further, in the case of Rekha Jain v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.8 this Court at paras 34 and 35, with regard to the quantum of damages, has held as under: