Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.81 seconds)

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

28. The claimants are the legal representatives of deceased - Basappa Kopte. The deceased was aged around 60 years at the time of the accident and there are five dependents. The accident is of the year 2012 and as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority, monthly income of the deceased would be Rs.6,500/-. After adding 10% towards future prospects as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and applying the appropriate multiplier of '5' so also, deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, the claimants are entitled for Rs.3,21,750/- (Rs.6,500+10%=Rs.7,150x12x5x3/4) towards loss of dependency. By looking into the records,
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 9815 - D Misra - Full Document

Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009

28. The claimants are the legal representatives of deceased - Basappa Kopte. The deceased was aged around 60 years at the time of the accident and there are five dependents. The accident is of the year 2012 and as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority, monthly income of the deceased would be Rs.6,500/-. After adding 10% towards future prospects as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and applying the appropriate multiplier of '5' so also, deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, the claimants are entitled for Rs.3,21,750/- (Rs.6,500+10%=Rs.7,150x12x5x3/4) towards loss of dependency. By looking into the records,
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 20141 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt Lalitha Rathan on 15 March, 2017

9. Sri Manvendra Reddy, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company (New India Assurance Company) submitted that, the claimants were travelling as gratuitous passengers in the goods tempo bearing registration No.CAS-2903 and therefore, the claimants are not entitled for compensation in the appeals filed by them. The learned counsel further submitted that, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company vs. Rathani and Others reported in 2009(2) SCC 75, the owner of the goods tempo in question is liable for payment of compensation to the claimants and therefore, sought for dismissal of the appeals. He further argued that, carrying
Karnataka High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - B Manohar - Full Document

Amudhavalli vs Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. on 3 December, 2020

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1687 MFA No. 200918 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 200316 of 2016 MFA No. 200317 of 2016 HC-KAR AND 16 OTHERS has filed four appeals by making pick and choose as to the award made by the Tribunal. In this regard, it is relevant to hold that, the claimants being the gratuitous passengers, cannot be considered as persons covered under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is also to be noted that, it is the fundamental breach on the part of the driver of the goods tempo to allow the claimants in more number in the goods tempo, that too, in excess of the capacity. It is also to be noted that, the owner of the goods tempo cannot be permitted to adopt the attitude of pick and choose in filing the appeals against the claimants [See - 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 312]. It is a fundamental breach on the part of the driver of the goods tempo to allow the passengers in a goods vehicle and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amudhavalli (supra), wherein, it is held that, allowing the person to travel in goods carriage is a fundamental breach. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly exonerated respondent No.4 - Insurance Company from indemnifying
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1