Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.22 seconds)
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd Rep. ... vs T.Laxman Goud And Others on 4 December, 2014 cites

Smt. Rajesh And Others vs Rajbir Singh And Others on 29 January, 2010

Now it is pertinent to refer to the decision in the case of Rajesh and Others vs. Rajbir Singh and others [11 supra], wherein, the Honble Supreme Court held to the following effect: Funeral expenses does not mean the fee paid in the crematorium or the fee paid for the use of space in the Cemetery and that there are many other expenses in connection with the funeral, besides expenses associated with religious practices and conventions and all those religious practices and conventions are very expensive. The Honble Supreme Court also held that it would only be just and reasonable that the Courts award at least Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) towards loss of consortium. In the above precedent the Honble Supreme Court had further awarded Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) towards loss of care and guidance towards minor children while awarding Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousands Only) towards funeral expenses. In the above precedent, the petitioners are the widow and the minor children of Bijender Sing, the deceased, who was aged about 33 years at the time of accident. Following the precedential guidance, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) is awarded to the first claimant towards loss of consortium and Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) is awarded towards loss of care and guidance for minor children; and Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousands Only) is awarded towards funeral expenses. Further, Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousands Only) each is awarded under the two conventional heads loss of estate and transport expenses.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 5161 - R Bindal - Full Document

Agnuru Jaya Ramulu Alias Jaya Ramudu, ... vs Mohammed Afzal Miyan And Anr. on 30 September, 2004

It is necessary to mention that the learned counsel for the insurance company had placed reliance on a decision in Agnuru Jaya Ramulu v. Mohammed Afzal Miyan and had contended that whenever there is a head-on collision between two vehicles, such a head-on collision takes place only when the drivers of both the vehicles are negligent and that therefore, it must be inferred that the 1st claimant had also contributed to the accident and that the accident was due to the contributory/composite negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles. Be it noted that the insurance company did not even file the sketch of the scene of accident, if any, prepared by the police in support of its contention.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 4 - Cited by 28 - Full Document

Lata Wadhwa & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 16 August, 2001

The facts of the cited case are as under: The wife of the 1st appellant had died in a road accident when the car driven by the 1st appellant was hit by a truck. The appellants had filed a claim petition under the provision of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for award of compensation. The claimants had pleaded that the deceased was 39 years of age at the time of the accident and that due to her death, the life of 1st appellant had become miserable in as much as being a Government servant he was unable to look after his minor child. They had further pleaded that the deceased used to look after the domestic affairs of the family and that both the appellants have been deprived of the care, love and affection of the deceased and the comfort of her company. The Hon'ble Supreme Court having referred to the ratio in the case of Lata Wadhwa V. State of Bihar held as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 1298 - Full Document

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

8. (c) Coming to the aspect of the multiplier, at the out set it needs to be mentioned that the deceased was aged 30 (Thirty) years as per the pleadings. In the crime records, like the inquest report and the PM examination report, the age of the deceased was mentioned as 30 (Thirty) years. Thus, the said age 30 (Thirty) years can be accepted as the age of the deceased at the time of the accident. The first claimant is the husband aged 34 years and the petitioners 2 and 3, who are the minor son and minor daughter, are aged 15 and 13 years respectively of the deceased, Kalavathi. The ages of the claimants are not in dispute. The multiplier should be chosen with reference to the age of the deceased and as per the column number 4 of the table given in the decision in Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another .
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 20141 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Anjani Singh & Ors vs Salauddin & Ors on 25 April, 2014

In the decision in Anjani Singh and Ors. V. Salauddin & Ors , the Honble Supreme Court by following the ratio in a three Judge Bench decision in Rajesh and Ors. V. Rajbir Singh and Ors had awarded in that case Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.1,00,000/- each towards loss of love and affection for the children and loss of consortium to the wife of the deceased.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 41 - V G Gowda - Full Document

Meka Chakra Rao vs Yelubandi Babu Rao @ Reddemma And Others on 19 December, 2000

3. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the claimants and the learned counsel for the insurance company. None appeared for the owner/insured as no notice was served on him; and both the learned counsel had stated that in these appeals, no notice is necessary to the said respondent, in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Meka Chakra Rao v. Yelubandi Babu Rao @ Reddemma and others .
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 3 - Cited by 102 - B Nazki - Full Document
1   2 Next