Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.41 seconds)
Raju (Dar) vs Ranjit Singh (158/18, S.L.C.) on 13 May, 2024 cites

Raju Khan @ Raja Khan @ Kasmuddin vs State Of Chhattisgarh 2 Mcrc/9491/2018 ... on 4 December, 2018

9. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not, with reference to a particular limb. When a disability certificate states that the injured has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 45% of the left lower limb, it is not the same as 45% permanent disability with reference to the whole body. The extent of disability of a limb (or part of the body) expressed in terms of a percentage of the total functions of that limb, obviously cannot be assumed to be the extent of disability of the whole body. If there is 60% permanent disability of the right hand and 80% permanent disability of left leg, it does not mean that the extent of permanent disability with reference to the whole body is 140% (that is 80% plus 60%). If different parts of the MACT No. 846/2018 Raju Vs. Ranjeet & Ors.. Page No. 22 of 41 body have suffered different percentages of disabilities, the sum total thereof expressed in terms of the permanent disability with reference to the whole body cannot obviously exceed 100%.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pappu Deo Yadav vs Naresh Kumar on 17 September, 2020

29.10. Future Prospect: Further in view of the judgment of MACT No. 846/2018 Raju Vs. Ranjeet & Ors.. Page No. 28 of 41 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar & Ors., AIR 2020 SC 4424 as also laid down in Sr. Antony @ Antony Swamy Vs. Managing Director KSRTC, Civil Appeal No. 2551 of 2018, future prospect has also been considered in the cases of permanent disability.
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 289 - S R Bhat - Full Document

Sidram vs The Divisional Manager United India ... on 16 November, 2022

(ii) Pain and suffering : Compensation Rs. 75,000/- for pain and suffering is to be awarded keeping in mind the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner. It is settled that serious injury not only permanently imposes physical limitations and disabilities but too often inflicts deep mental and emotional scars upon the victim.{support drawn from Sidram (supra)}
Supreme Court of India Cites 50 - Cited by 44 - S Kant - Full Document

Arvind Kumar Mishra vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr on 29 September, 2010

11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that the percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation. (See for example, the decisions of this Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [(2010) 10 SCC 254 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) MACT No. 846/2018 Raju Vs. Ranjeet & Ors.. Page No. 23 of 41 1258 : (2010) 10 Scale 298] and Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2010) 10 SCC 341 :
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 1045 - R M Lodha - Full Document
1   2 3 Next