Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.50 seconds)Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd vs Beant Kaur And Ors on 14 March, 2019
In terms of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance
Company Limited versus Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and other 2018
(4) RCR (Civil) 333 and of this Court in FAO No. 5882 of 2018 (National
Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Rinki Sharma and others) which was
15 of 18
::: Downloaded on - 02-10-2019 11:59:22 :::
FAO No. 1654 of 2014 (O&M) 16
decided on 14.03.2019 alongwith FAO No. 2110 of 2016 titled Shri Ram
General Insurance Company Limited versus Beant Kaur and others,
appellants are entitled to `40,000/- on account of loss of parental
consortium. Claimants are, thus, entitled to total compensation of
`6,10,000/- detailed as under:-
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram on 18 September, 2018
In terms of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance
Company Limited versus Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and other 2018
(4) RCR (Civil) 333 and of this Court in FAO No. 5882 of 2018 (National
Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Rinki Sharma and others) which was
15 of 18
::: Downloaded on - 02-10-2019 11:59:22 :::
FAO No. 1654 of 2014 (O&M) 16
decided on 14.03.2019 alongwith FAO No. 2110 of 2016 titled Shri Ram
General Insurance Company Limited versus Beant Kaur and others,
appellants are entitled to `40,000/- on account of loss of parental
consortium. Claimants are, thus, entitled to total compensation of
`6,10,000/- detailed as under:-
Miss Nandini Minor And Others vs Amrik Singh And Others on 27 January, 2011
Major sons and grandchild were held entitled to compensation
in Nandini's case (supra). Therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly held
the claimants entitled to file the claim petition and entitled to receive
compensation.
Jiju Kuruvila & Ors vs Kunjujamma Mohan & Ors on 2 July, 2013
Learned counsel for the insurance company had vehemently
argued that the element of contributory negligence is apparent, as there is a
head on collision in this case. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that PW2
Bachittar Singh, an eye witness of the accident and propounder of the FIR
(Ex.P1) has specifically deposed that the accident in question took place due
to the sole negligence and rash driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.
The offending truck, it is stated, being driven in a rash and negligent manner
struck against the Alto car while coming towards wrong side of the road.
FIR in this case was promptly registered. It is further not denied that the
driver of the offending truck has been convicted by the learned Sub
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Balachaur on 09.06.2015. Merely because
there is a head on collision between two vehicles, it cannot, per se, be
10 of 18
::: Downloaded on - 02-10-2019 11:59:22 :::
FAO No. 1654 of 2014 (O&M) 11
indicative of an element of contributory negligence. It is a settled position
that in the absence of specific positive evidence on record to show
negligence on the part of the deceased, the same cannot be presumed merely
on the ground of a head on collision. Reference in this regard can gainfully
be made to Jiju Kuruvila and others versus Kunjujamma Mohan and
others 2013 (3) RCR (Civil) 817 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court
negated the contention that as the driver was in an intoxicated condition, the
collision took place due to his negligence. It was held that no definite
finding can be given in the absence of specific evidence in this respect.
Ved Parkash & Ors vs Ram Sarup & Ors on 8 October, 2018
Jaswinder Kaur was admittedly 55 years old at the time of the
accident. There is no evidence on record to indicate the said deceased to be
taking any tuitions or earning anything therefrom. However, she was
admittedly a house wife. The claimants and both parents were all living
together. It is a settled position of law that gratuitous services rendered by
12 of 18
::: Downloaded on - 02-10-2019 11:59:22 :::
FAO No. 1654 of 2014 (O&M) 13
the housewife cannot be equated with that of a labourer or even a skilled
worker. This Court in Ved Parkash and others versus Ram Sarup and
others, FAO No. 3395 of 2015, decided on 08.08.2018, has assessed the
income of a housewife, who was 48 years old, to be `7,000/- per month in
respect to an accident which took place in the year 2011. Accident in the
present case took place on 22.09.2012. The deceased was 55 years old, able
bodied person and was looking after her household. In the present facts and
circumstances, it is considered appropriate to assess the notional income of
the deceased to be `7,000/- per month.
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Pranay Sethi Son Of Late Prashant Sethi ... on 20 April, 2011
In view of the guidelines of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company
Limited versus Pranay Sethi and others 2017 (4) RCR (Civil) 1009,
increase on account of future prospects at the rate of 10% (`700/-) is
afforded as the deceased was 55 years old at the time of accident, which
takes the income of the deceased to `7700/- per month.
Paramjit Singh And Another vs Dilbagh Singh Alias Bagga And Others on 16 May, 2013
In terms of
judgment of Division of this Court in Paramjit Singh and another versus
Dilbagh Singh @ Bagga and others 2014 (4) RCR (Civil) 895, no
deduction is to be effected in the compensation to be awarded in the case of
death of a house-wife. Applying a multiplier of 11 instead of 9, as per the
guidelines in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla
Verma and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009
(3) RCR (Civil) 77, dependancy of the claimants is, therefore, assessed as
`10,16,400/- (`7700x12x11). The claimants are also entitled to `15,000/-
each for funeral expenses (instead of `6000/-) and loss of estate.