Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.24 seconds)Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009
31. As regards A.O. No. 56 of 2013 with respect to
the quantum of compensation on account of death of Mr.
Naresh Kumar Arora (father of the appellants/claimants),
Mrs Indu Arora (mother of appellants/claimants), the
learned Tribunal has correctly computed the
compensation at Rs.20,61,844/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh
Sixty-One Thousand Eight Hundred Forty-Four only),
along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the
date of filing of the petition till realization. The Tribunal
has determined the income of deceased Naresh Kumar
Arora on the basis of his income tax returns and applied
the appropriate multiplier considering his age. It has
made the statutory deduction towards personal expenses
and added future prospects in accordance with the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma
v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121
and Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
(2012) 6 SCC 421. Reasonable amounts have also been
awarded towards loss of love and affection, loss of
consortium, funeral expenses, and other conventional
heads. This Court finds that the computation of
compensation is just, fair, and in conformity with the
settled principles of law. The total amount awarded by
the Tribunal, therefore, requires no interference and
stands affirmed.
Section 173 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Mrs. Priti Pramod Nayak vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd on 17 December, 2019
24. Furthermore on issue no. 10 with respect to
A.O. No. 573 of 2012 and A.O. No. 56 0f 2013, Ms. Priti
and another vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd and
another- regarding entitlement and quantum of
compensation on account of deaths of Mr. Naresh Kumar
Arora and Mrs Indu Arora the learned Tribunal, upon
appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, recorded
the following findings - It was established that due to the
accident in question, the petitioners' father Naresh Arora,
mother Indu Arora, and brother Madhav @ Manav lost
their lives, while the petitioners themselves sustained
injuries. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the
petitioners were entitled to claim compensation on
account of the deaths of their parents and brother. With
respect to the deceased Naresh Kumar Arora, the
Tribunal found that he was self-employed and carried on
10
2025:UHC:9988
business under the name M/s Sawan Enterprises (LG
Products). The age of the deceased Naresh Arora was
proved from the post-mortem report as 45 years. The
Tribunal accordingly took his annual income as
Rs.1,56,745/-.
Rani Laxmibai Kshetriya Gramin Bank& ... vs Manoj Kumar Chak Etc on 9 April, 2013
28. On issue no. 11 regarding maintainability
under Section 166 MV Act the Tribunal noted that the
petition was initially filed under Section 163A, later
amended to Section 166 citing Surendra Kumar Arora
11
2025:UHC:9988
& Ors. v. Manoj & Ors. (2012 (3) TAC 353 SC), the
Tribunal held that under Section 166, the burden to
prove negligence lies on the claimant. The petition was
therefore maintainable, with the burden of proving
negligence on the petitioners.
Antitrust - Section 26(2) Disclaimer: ... vs Janta Land Promoters Limited ... on 27 October, 2014
23. On issue No. 10 with respect to A.O. No. 58 of
2013, United India Insurance Co. Ltd and others vs. Priti
and another, regarding entitlement and quantum of
compensation arising out of the injuries sustained by Mr.
Arun Prasad, Mrs. Madhu Arun Prasad, Ms. Priti and Ms.
Ruchika, the Tribunal held that based on the available
documentary and oral evidence, the total proven medical
expenses were calculated to be Rs. 7,45,404/-. This
amount included Rs.83,295 towards bills and
prescriptions, Rs.6,42,109 for treatment at Max Hospital
(Delhi) for Preeti, and Rs.20,000 towards miscellaneous
expenses such as diet, conveyance, and other related
costs. Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded Rs.7,45,404/-
with 8% simple interest per annum from the date of filing
till realization. Given that the petitioners were minors,
the amount was directed to be shared equally between
them.
Branch Manager, United India Insurance ... vs Smt. Balo Minj 89 Wpc/899/2019 ... on 12 March, 2019
7. Hence, the present order deals with three sets
of claim petitions- one by Ms. Priti and another vs.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd and others for
compensation on account of deaths of Mr. Naresh Kumar
Arora, Mrs Indu Arora and Madhav @ Manav ; and other
petitions being United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Ms.
Priti and another for fulfillment of compensation on
account of deaths of Mr. Naresh Kumar Arora, Mrs. Indu
Arora and Madhav @manav and serious injuries
sustained by Mr. Arun Prasad, Mrs. Madhu Arun Prasad,
Ms. Priti and Ms. Ruchika.
Santosh Devi vs National Insurance Co.Ltd.& Ors on 23 April, 2012
25. Following the principle laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Santosh Devi v. National
Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others, (2012) 6 SCC 421, a
30% increase towards future prospects was added, as the
deceased was self-employed. Thirty percent of
Rs.1,56,745/- amounts to Rs.47,023/-, making the total
income Rs.2,03,768/-. After deducting one-third
(Rs.67,922/-) towards personal expenses, the annual
contribution to the family was computed as
Rs.1,35,846/-.
Smt. Pushpa And Ors. vs Rai Singh And Ors. on 3 July, 2007
(2010 Gauhati 795) and Smt. Pushpa v. Rai Singh
(2007 (4) MPHT 277), holding that the truck driver's
negligence was the cause of the accident. Issue was
decided in favor of the petitioners.
Tilak Raj Darshan Lal Matta vs The Branch Manager, The Oriental ... on 3 March, 2015
22. On issue No. 9 regarding validity of insurance
contract, although the car was insured in the name of
deceased Manohar Lal, the Tribunal held that the policy
was valid and in force from 26.12.2007 to 25.12.2008.
The insurer had accepted premiums and issued policy
documents; thus, it remained liable. The Tribunal
referred to Darshan Lal v. New India Insurance Co. (2004
(4) SC 164) but distinguished it, holding the insurance
company liable. Issue was decided against the insurer.