Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 29 (0.30 seconds)
A.Gopinathan vs Afzal Basha on 9 March, 2020 cites

Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009

In Arun Kumar Agrawal, the Apex Court, after noticing some of the precedents in which guiding principles have been laid down for determination of the compensation payable to the victims of motor accident or their legal representatives, held that though, Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act does not, in terms apply to the cases in which claim for compensation is filed under Section 166 of the Act, in the absence of any other definite criteria for determination of compensation payable to the dependents of a non-earning housewife/mother, it would be reasonable to rely upon the criteria specified in Clause (6) of the Second Schedule and then apply appropriate multiplier keeping in view the decisions in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas [(1994) 2 SCC 176]; U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra [(1996) 4 SCC 362]; Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121]; and also take guidance from the decision in Lata Wadha v. State of Bihar [(2001) 8 SCC 197].
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 20141 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi on 31 October, 2017

14. Now coming to the last aspect, i.e., the conventional heads, in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680], it has been standardised at Rs.15,000 for loss of estate; Rs.40,000 towards loss of consortium (in the present case loss of love and affection) and Rs.15,000 towards funeral expenses. The total amount, MACA No. 380 of 2010 -34- thus, would be Rs.70,000, which as per the said judgment is capable of being enhanced @ 10 percent in the span of every three years. However, we are still within the window of three years." "underline supplied"
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 9815 - D Misra - Full Document

Indian Bank vs Abs Marine Products Pvt. Ltd on 18 April, 2006

In State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih [(2014) 8 SCC 883] a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court affirmed the view taken in ABS Marine Products' case (supra) holding that, the directions issued under Article 142 do not constitute a binding precedent unlike Article 141 of the Constitution of India. They are direction issued to do proper justice and exercise of such power, MACA No. 380 of 2010 -41- cannot be considered as law laid down by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court held further that, the directions of the Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, while moulding the relief, that relax the application of law or exempt the case in hand from the rigour of the law in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances do not comprise the ratio decidendi and therefore lose its basic premise of making it a binding precedent. Paras.11 to 13 of the judgment read thus;
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 126 - Full Document

Lata Wadhwa & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 16 August, 2001

In Arun Kumar Agrawal, the Apex Court, after noticing some of the precedents in which guiding principles have been laid down for determination of the compensation payable to the victims of motor accident or their legal representatives, held that though, Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act does not, in terms apply to the cases in which claim for compensation is filed under Section 166 of the Act, in the absence of any other definite criteria for determination of compensation payable to the dependents of a non-earning housewife/mother, it would be reasonable to rely upon the criteria specified in Clause (6) of the Second Schedule and then apply appropriate multiplier keeping in view the decisions in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas [(1994) 2 SCC 176]; U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra [(1996) 4 SCC 362]; Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121]; and also take guidance from the decision in Lata Wadha v. State of Bihar [(2001) 8 SCC 197].
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 1298 - Full Document

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation ... vs Trilok Chandra & Others on 7 May, 1996

In Arun Kumar Agrawal, the Apex Court, after noticing some of the precedents in which guiding principles have been laid down for determination of the compensation payable to the victims of motor accident or their legal representatives, held that though, Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act does not, in terms apply to the cases in which claim for compensation is filed under Section 166 of the Act, in the absence of any other definite criteria for determination of compensation payable to the dependents of a non-earning housewife/mother, it would be reasonable to rely upon the criteria specified in Clause (6) of the Second Schedule and then apply appropriate multiplier keeping in view the decisions in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas [(1994) 2 SCC 176]; U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra [(1996) 4 SCC 362]; Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121]; and also take guidance from the decision in Lata Wadha v. State of Bihar [(2001) 8 SCC 197].
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 1415 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next