Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 31 (0.26 seconds)Section 1A in The Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 [Entire Act]
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Legal Representatives' Suits Act, 1855
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Harold Clive Johnson And Ors. And Porto ... vs The Madras Railway Company on 19 April, 1905
66. Under Sections 110-A to 110-F of the amended Motor Vehicles Act, the procedure has been made simpler and a suit by the executor, administrator or representative of the deceased on behalf of the claimants has been dispensed with and all the persons entitled to compensation are enabled to maintain an application under Section 110-A, thereby giving effect to the extended meaning of the word 'representative' in Section 1-A of the Fatal Accidents Act rendered in Johnson v. The Madras Railway Co. (1906) I.L.R. 28 Mad. 473 : 15 M.L.J. 363. In the circumstances, the term 'legal representative' can be construed as including all claimants under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Mohammed Habibullah And Anr. vs Seethammal on 4 July, 1966
a Division Bench of this Court referred to the decision of Anantanarayanan., C.J. and Ramakrishnan, J., in Mohammed Habibullah v. Seethammal (1966) A.G.J. 349. with approval.
The Andhra Bank Ltd vs R. Srinivasan And Others on 31 August, 1961
In Andhra Bank Limited v. Srinivasan . the Supreme Court after quoting with approval a passage from the judgment of Woodroffe, J referred to supra, held that a legatee who obtains only a part of the estate of the deceased under a will can be said to represent his estate under Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court held that the whole object of widening the scope of the expression 'legal representative' which the present definition is intended to achieve would be frustrated if it is held that legatees of different portions of the estate of a deceased do not fall within its purview. Thus, it is settled law that any person who becomes entitled to a part of the estate can be held to represent the estate and thereby a legal representative of the deceased.
Gobald Motor Service Ltd. & Another vs R. M. K. Veluswami & Others on 14 April, 1961
67. The only other point that needs reference is the scope of the words 'loss of benefit to the estate'. This question has been fully dealt with by my learned brother and I do not want to add anything more except to state that taking all the circumstances, it does not appear that the Supreme Court by its illustration given in Gobald Motor Service v. Veluswami . intended to lay down that loss of future earning of the deceased would be part of loss to the estate claimable by the legal representatives, making a complete departure from the established law in England. As in this case the question does not arise, as the deceased who was a labourer would not have accumulated any earnings for future during his life time, the petitioners would not be entitled to any increase in the compensation awarded to them on the ground of likely loss of future earnings or savings therefrom occasioned to the estate of the deceased.