Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.76 seconds)Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009
29. The deceased Amarsingh (in MVC
No.69/2014) was aged 35 years as on the date of the
accident and 40% of his monthly income should be
counted upon while deciding loss of dependency. Thus,
40% of Rs.7,500/- comes to Rs.1,875 and monthly
income comes to Rs.9,375/-. The suitable multiplier in
accordance with the judgment of the Apex Court in the
36
case of Smt.Sarla Verma (supra) is 16. He left behind
him a family of five members i.e., his widow, two
children and parents. Deducting 1/4th of his income
towards his personal expenses comes to Rs.7,031/- and
annual income is Rs.84,372/-. Multiplying the annual
income with the multiplier 16, the compensation
towards loss of dependency comes to Rs.13,49,952/-.
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Pranay Sethi Son Of Late Prashant Sethi ... on 20 April, 2011
The Apex Court in the above said judgment in the
matter of Pranay Sethi (supra) has limited Rs.15,000/-
towards loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of
consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses
and the same is applicable in the present case. Thus,
the compensation works out to Rs.14,19,952/-.
However, having held that the Amarsingh himself was
guilty of contributory negligence by 10%, his
dependents/claimants in MVC No.69/2014 are entitled
for Rs.12,77,957/- as against Rs.11,54,000/- computed
by the Tribunal. Thus, there is enhancement of
compensation by Rs.1,23,957/-.
Khenyei vs New India Assurnace Co.Ltd.& Ors on 7 May, 2015
26. As per the judgments of the Apex Court in
the matter of Khenyei (supra), followed by its judgment
in the case of Kamlesh and Others vs. Attar Singh
and Others, reported in (2015) 15 SCC 364, when
both the drivers are tortfeasors, it would open to the
claimants to claim compensation from any of the joint
tortfeasor despite non-impleading the owner and
insurer of the vehicle on which victims were travelling
34
with liberty to the insurer of the tempo trax to sue the
owner of the motorcycle in an independent proceeding.
Syed Mehaboob vs The New India Assurance Ltd on 7 February, 2011
23. In our considered opinion, the above
observation need not be the universal formula on all the
occasions. The rider knowing fully well that it is risky
to balance the vehicle allows two pillion riders to travel
with him on the vehicle. At the same time, the pillion
riders who are male adult persons necessarily will have
the knowledge of the consequences of such traversal
with him. Thus, all the three of them knowing fully well
the vulnerability of such riding and the consequences
thereupon, guilty of negligence. Ofcourse, Motor Vehicle
Act is benevolent legislation intended to place the
claimant in the same position that he was before the
accident and to compassionate him for the loss. Thus,
it should be interpreted liberally so as to achieve the
maximum benefit [as per the judgment of the Apex
Court in Syed Mehaboob vs. New India Assurance Co.
Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 625: (2011) 4 SCALE 496: 2011 (4)
SLT 56.]. At the same time, the rider of the motorcycle
30
shall not jump over the statutory obligation imposed
under Section 128 of the M.V. Act which reads thus:
Kamlesh & Ors vs Attar Singh & Ors on 27 October, 2015
26. As per the judgments of the Apex Court in
the matter of Khenyei (supra), followed by its judgment
in the case of Kamlesh and Others vs. Attar Singh
and Others, reported in (2015) 15 SCC 364, when
both the drivers are tortfeasors, it would open to the
claimants to claim compensation from any of the joint
tortfeasor despite non-impleading the owner and
insurer of the vehicle on which victims were travelling
34
with liberty to the insurer of the tempo trax to sue the
owner of the motorcycle in an independent proceeding.
Sudhir Kumar Rana vs Surinder Singh & Ors on 6 May, 2008
22. Learned counsel continues to submit that
the insurer is making much out of the fact that
Amarsingh did not possess driving licence to drive the
motorcycle. But, the Apex Court in the matter of
Sudhir Kumar Rana (supra) submits that driving a
vehicle without licence need not amount to negligence
as regards the accident in the absence of any specific
evidence. With regard to the fact of two pillion riders on
the vehicle, he places reliance on the unreported
judgment of this Court in MFA No.31241/2011 dated
29.01.2013. In both cases co-ordinate Benches of this
Court were of the opinion that when negligence was
entirely on the part of driver of opposite vehicle,
carrying two pillion riders did not amount to
contributory negligence.
Divisional Manager M/S United India ... vs Smt Sunanda W/O Veerabhadragouda Patil on 27 July, 2011
The Division Bench of this Court with
regard to the aspect of carrying two pillion riders on a
motorcycle in the judgment in the case of Divisional
Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs.
Smt.Sunanda and Others reported in [2011 Kant
M.A.C. 116 (Kant)] observed thus:
The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt Channamma on 18 September, 2008
21. Sri Babu H. Metagudda, learned counsel for
the claimants has placed reliance on the judgment of
the Larger Bench of the Apex Court in the case of
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Smt.Chinnamma
Joy and Ors. reported in AIR 2013 SCC 2293 and
buttresses his contention that in the absence of any
direct or corroborative evidence it cannot be held that
there was any negligence on the part of the rider of the
motorcycle involved in the accident. It cannot be held
that Amarsingh was riding the motorcycle. Even, if far
argument sake it is held that Amarsingh was the rider
of the motorcycle then also contributory negligence
28
cannot be attributed against him since investigation
officer has charge sheeted driver of opposite vehicle.
1