Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.23 seconds)Section 149 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 173 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
United India Insurance Co.Ltd vs Shila Datta & Ors on 13 October, 2011
Further as the appellant/insurer falls
under Point No.1 but not under Points 3 to 5 of Shila Dattas case (6 supra),
in my view, the reference of the Points 3 to 5 to a Larger Bench will have no
effect on the right of the present appellant/insurer to pursue the appeal
independently in the absence of the insured.
Meka Chakra Rao vs Yelubandi Babu Rao @ Reddemma And Others on 19 December, 2000
appellant/Insurance Company and Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned
counsel for respondent No.3/claimant. Even though notice sent to R.1 was
served, there is no representation on his behalf. However, since R.1
suffered decree before the Tribunal, his absence in the appeal will not have
any difference as per the decision reported in Meka Chakra Rao vs.
Yelubandi Babu Rao @ Reddemma and others . R.2 is not necessary party
in this appeal vide Memo USR No.889/2009.
Section 147 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Josphine James vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd. & Anr on 14 August, 2013
For this reason, the decisions in
Josphine Jamess case (2 supra) and Yarrasani Aparanjis case (3 supra)
cited by the respondent No.1 herein will not bind the appellant. This point
is answered accordingly.
Kishan Gopal & Anr vs Lala & Ors on 26 August, 2013
18) POINT No.2: As the Point No.1 is held in affirmative, it has now to
be seen whether compensation awarded is just and reasonable or excessive.
The first argument of the appellant is that the Tribunal erred in taking the
notional income of the claimant as Rs.2,500/- p.m, it contended that since
the boy is only six years old and a non-earning member, his annual income
ought to have been taken as Rs.15,000/-. On the other hand, respondent
No.1/claimant contends that the notional income of Rs.2,500/- p.m is an
appropriate one and in Kishan Gopals case (4 supra), the notional income
of a 10 years old boy was taken as Rs.30,000/- p.a. In this context, perusal
of the award would show that the Tribunal accepted the notional income of
the claimant at Rs.2,500/- p.m (Rs.30,000/- p.a). Then, considering the
evidence of PWs.2 and 3, the Tribunal appears to be convinced that the
claimant suffered permanent disability and cannot do any work, fixed his
functional disability at 100%. Thereby, it multiplied his annual income with
a selected multiplier of 15 and awarded Rs.4,50,000/- (Rs.30,000/- x 15).
National Insurance Co. Ltd., ... vs Nicolletta Rohtagi And Ors on 17 September, 2002
Rather directed that Points
3 to 5 which are in conflict with Nicolletta Rohtagis case (5 supra) be
referred to a Larger Bench. That is how referred Points 1 to 5 were
answered by Apex Court.
1