Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.55 seconds)
Ranganatha N vs Himansh Rusia on 20 November, 2025 cites

Raj Kumar vs Ajay Kumar & Anr on 18 October, 2010

30. Before discussing on this point, it is necessary to advert to the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2 Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, "the provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The Court or Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned".
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 3811 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Aliveli Mallareddy vs Surthani Linganna , Chinna Linganna, on 21 July, 2023

31. By considering the dictums of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Our Hon'ble High Court and also evidence led by the medical officer, It is appears to Court that, the petitioner has sustained grievous and simple injuries. And it certainly affected on functioning over the left leg. The petition discloses that the petitioner is student and helping to his mother in day today activities. The evidence of the SCCH-25 25 MVC No.3543/2024 & MVC No.3544/2024 medical officer clearly clinches that on clinical examination, the medical officer has pointed out that the petitioner is not required further treatment or follow up treatment and also implants should be remove. However the injuries affected to petitioner, certainly effects on his further education and also extra curriculum activities. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held in a judgment/decision of ALIVELI MALLAREDDY Vs SURTHANI LINGANNA 3 @ CHINNA LINGANNA & Others. in paragraph No.10 "This evidence has been dealt with by the High Court in extenso and having regard to the fact that the Almanco Manual would suggest that the disability when not assessed to the whole body, the disability to the lower limb will be 1/5 and upper limb be ΒΌ of the disability assessed."
Telangana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1