Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.29 seconds)
Mangesh Madhukar Karmakar & Anor vs State Of Mah. Thru. Collector & 6 Ors on 7 June, 2019 cites

N. K. V. Bros (P) Ltd vs M. Karumai Ammal And Ors. Etc on 21 March, 1980

24. It will be useful to advert to the dictum in N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. vs. M. Karumai Ammal (1980) 3 SCC 457, wherein it was contended by the vehicle owner that the criminal case in relation to the accident had ended in acquittal and for which reason the claim under the Motor Vehicles Act ought to be rejected. This Court negatived the said argument by observing that the nature of proof required to establish culpable rashness, punishable under IPC, is more stringent that negligence sufficient under the law of tort to create liability. ... "
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 1161 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Dulcina Fernandes & Ors vs Joaquim Xavier Cruz & Anr on 8 October, 2013

In Culcina Fernandes vs. Jaaquim Xavier Cruz (2013) 10 SCC 646, this Court examined similar situation where the evidence of claimant's witness was discarded by the Tribunal and that the respondent in that case was acquitted in the criminal case concerning the accident. This Court, however, opined that it cannot be overlooked that upon investigation of the case registered against the respondent, prima facie, materials showing negligence were found to put him on trial.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 260 - R Gogoi - Full Document

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

13. As it has been found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of tractor-trolley, the claimants would be entitled to receive compensation. The evidence on record indicates that the deceased was working as a Medical Officer and as per the salary certificate at Exhibit-77 he was receiving net salary of Rs.13,520/- per month. Amount of profession tax being deducted was Rs.300/-. It is thus clear that the deceased was received net salary of Rs.13,220/- per month. The annual salary would therefore be (13,220 x 12) Rs.1,58,640/- . 1/3rd amount was liable to be deducted for personal expenses and hence the annual salary after such deduction (1,58,640-52,880) would be Rs.1,05,760/-. Considering the age of the deceased, multiplier of eleven was rightly applied by the Claims Tribunal and this would make the total loss to be (1,05,760 x 11) Rs.11,63,360/-. By applying the law as laid down in National Insurance ::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 18:02:01 ::: 214-FA-302-08 13/13 Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680, 40% amount towards future prospects was liable to be awarded which comes to Rs.4,65,344/-. Further amount of Rs.70,000/- on the conventional heads is also liable to be awarded. This would make the total amount of compensation (Rs.11,63,360 + 4,65,344 + 70,000) Rs.16,98,704/-. The total amount of compensation would be payable with interest at the rate of 9% per annum by respondent Nos.1 to 4. Point No.(II) is answered accordingly.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 9815 - D Misra - Full Document
1   2 Next