Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.34 seconds)The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Ram Dayal & Anr vs Ram Nibash & Ors (Icici Lombard Ins Co ... on 21 January, 2016
1012/2015, it has been held that :
"it is well settled that the choice of multiplier is
determined by the age of the deceased or that of the
claimant whichever is higher {reliance upon Kerala State
Road Transport Corporation Vs Susamma Thomas (1994)
2 SCC 176; U.P.SRTC V. Trilok Chandana (1996) 4 SCC
362; New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs Shanti Pathak (Smt)
& Ors (2007) 10 SCC 1 and Sarla Verma V. Delhi
Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121}
In the copy of election I card of Smt. Ajay Kumari i.e. mother of deceased
wherein her age is mentioned as 38 years as on 01.01.2003, therefore, she was
around 49 years old at the time of accident i.e 21.12.2014, thus relevant
multiplier in the present case is 13 ("Ram Dayal & Anr Vs Ram Nibash &
Ors passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 21.01.2016 by Hon'ble Justice
Sh. R.K.Gauba in MAC App. 1012/2015).
New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Smt. Shanti Pathak And Ors on 10 July, 2007
1012/2015, it has been held that :
"it is well settled that the choice of multiplier is
determined by the age of the deceased or that of the
claimant whichever is higher {reliance upon Kerala State
Road Transport Corporation Vs Susamma Thomas (1994)
2 SCC 176; U.P.SRTC V. Trilok Chandana (1996) 4 SCC
362; New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs Shanti Pathak (Smt)
& Ors (2007) 10 SCC 1 and Sarla Verma V. Delhi
Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121}
In the copy of election I card of Smt. Ajay Kumari i.e. mother of deceased
wherein her age is mentioned as 38 years as on 01.01.2003, therefore, she was
around 49 years old at the time of accident i.e 21.12.2014, thus relevant
multiplier in the present case is 13 ("Ram Dayal & Anr Vs Ram Nibash &
Ors passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 21.01.2016 by Hon'ble Justice
Sh. R.K.Gauba in MAC App. 1012/2015).
Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009
1012/2015, it has been held that :
"it is well settled that the choice of multiplier is
determined by the age of the deceased or that of the
claimant whichever is higher {reliance upon Kerala State
Road Transport Corporation Vs Susamma Thomas (1994)
2 SCC 176; U.P.SRTC V. Trilok Chandana (1996) 4 SCC
362; New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs Shanti Pathak (Smt)
& Ors (2007) 10 SCC 1 and Sarla Verma V. Delhi
Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121}
In the copy of election I card of Smt. Ajay Kumari i.e. mother of deceased
wherein her age is mentioned as 38 years as on 01.01.2003, therefore, she was
around 49 years old at the time of accident i.e 21.12.2014, thus relevant
multiplier in the present case is 13 ("Ram Dayal & Anr Vs Ram Nibash &
Ors passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 21.01.2016 by Hon'ble Justice
Sh. R.K.Gauba in MAC App. 1012/2015).
Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Haresh Kumar @ Harish Kumar on 27 May, 2014
21. Future prospects: Learned counsel for petitioners has argued that future
prospects of deceased should be considered. As per record, deceased was
around 24 years at the time of accident and there was a constant increase in his
salary from timetotime. Had he been alive, his salary would have increased.
Petitioners have also relied upon Sanjay verma Vs Haryana Roadways 2014
ACJ 692 (SC), Mirajuddin Vs Shonki Ram & Ors MAC App 604/2011 dated
03.12.2013 (Delhi), Reliance General Insurance Company Litimed Vs Haresh
Kumar @ Harish Kumar MAC App no. 399/12 dated 27.05.2014 (Delhi),
Uttranchal Transport Corporation Vs. Navneet Jerath 2013 ACJ 1966 (Delhi),
Neerupam Mohan Mathur Vs New India Assurance Company 2013 (14) SCC
15]. Hence, his monthly income is assessed around (Rs.11,950/ + Rs. 50% of
Rs.11,950/= Rs.17,925/.
Uttaranchal Transport Corporation vs Navneet Jerath on 3 January, 2012
21. Future prospects: Learned counsel for petitioners has argued that future
prospects of deceased should be considered. As per record, deceased was
around 24 years at the time of accident and there was a constant increase in his
salary from timetotime. Had he been alive, his salary would have increased.
Petitioners have also relied upon Sanjay verma Vs Haryana Roadways 2014
ACJ 692 (SC), Mirajuddin Vs Shonki Ram & Ors MAC App 604/2011 dated
03.12.2013 (Delhi), Reliance General Insurance Company Litimed Vs Haresh
Kumar @ Harish Kumar MAC App no. 399/12 dated 27.05.2014 (Delhi),
Uttranchal Transport Corporation Vs. Navneet Jerath 2013 ACJ 1966 (Delhi),
Neerupam Mohan Mathur Vs New India Assurance Company 2013 (14) SCC
15]. Hence, his monthly income is assessed around (Rs.11,950/ + Rs. 50% of
Rs.11,950/= Rs.17,925/.
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Smt. Pushpa Rana And Ors. on 20 December, 2007
I am also being guided by the
judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in "National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Pushpa Rana" (2009 ACJ 287), wherein it was held that in case
the petitioner files the certified copy of the criminal record or the criminal
MACT No 3141/16 Smt. Ajay Kumari Vs Niranjan Singh & Ors page no.6/15
record showing the completion of the investigation by the police or the
issuance of charge sheet under Section 279/304 A IPC or the certified copy of
the FIR or in addition the recovery memo or the mechanical inspection report
of the offending vehicle, these documents are sufficient proof to reach to the
conclusion that the driver was negligent. It is also settled law that the term
rashness and negligence has to be constructed lightly while making a decision
on a petition for claim for the same as compared to the word rashness and
negligence as finds mention in the Indian Penal Code. This is because the
chapter in the Motor Vehicle Act dealing with compensation is a benevolent
legislation and not a penal one.
Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. vs Jaibir Singh & Ors. on 21 December, 2009
In terms of the directions given by Hon'ble High Court in case titled "Rajesh
Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors." bearing FAO number 842/2003 decided on
08.06.2009, UCO Bank/State Bank of India has agreed to open a Special
Fixed Deposit Account for the victims of road accidents.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Ganga Devi & Ors. on 23 November, 2009
33. As per orders of Hon'ble High Court in case titled " New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. Vs. Ganga Devi & ors. Bearing MAC.