Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.22 seconds)
United India Insurance Company Limited vs Rani And Ors. on 27 April, 2007 cites

Asha And Ors. vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. And Anr. on 3 September, 2003

In Asha v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to consider the arguments of the learned Counsel as to whether the High Court was correct in deducting the allowances and the amounts paid towards L.I.C., Security Purpose and H.B.A. from the monthly income for computing compensation and pleased to uphold the deductions made by the High Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 89 - H K Sema - Full Document

Mrs. Helen C. Rebello & Ors vs Maharashtra State Road Transport ... on 18 September, 1998

10. The Supreme Court in Utter Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok chandra reported in 1996 ACJ 851, State of Haryana and Anr. v. Jashir kaur and Ors. reported in 2004(1) L.W. 1, and Mrs. Helen C. Rebello and Ors. v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation reported in II (1998) ACC 512(SC) : 1999-1 -LW.208 held that the compensation awarded to the victim should be 'just' which would denote equity, fairness and reasonableness and it should not be treated as bonanza.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 593 - Full Document

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Mrs. Patricia Jean Mahajan & Others on 13 March, 2001

8. Again in United India Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan and Ors. , the Supreme court confirmed its view that the receipts on account of insurance policy and social security benefit received by the claimants from out of the contribution of the deceased are not liable to be deducted from the total compensation awarded to the kith and kin of the victim in the accident.
Delhi High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 68 - M S Siddiqui - Full Document

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation ... vs Trilok Chandra & Others on 7 May, 1996

10. The Supreme Court in Utter Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok chandra reported in 1996 ACJ 851, State of Haryana and Anr. v. Jashir kaur and Ors. reported in 2004(1) L.W. 1, and Mrs. Helen C. Rebello and Ors. v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation reported in II (1998) ACC 512(SC) : 1999-1 -LW.208 held that the compensation awarded to the victim should be 'just' which would denote equity, fairness and reasonableness and it should not be treated as bonanza.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 1415 - Full Document

The Divisional Controller, Ksrtc vs Mahadeva Shetty And Anr on 31 July, 2003

In the Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty and Anr. reported in 2003 AIR SCW 3797 in paragraph 15, the Supreme Court held that, It has to be kept in view that the Tribunal constituted under the Act as provided in Section 168 is required to make an award determining the amount of compensation which to it appears to be 'just'. It has to be borne in mind that compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. Bodily injury is nothing but a deprivation which entitles the claimant to damages. The quantum of damages fixed should be in accordance to the injury. An Injury may bring about many consequences like loss of earning capacity, loss of mental pleasure and many such consequential losses. A person becomes entitled to damages for the mental and physical loss, his or her life may have been shortened or that he or she cannot enjoy life which has been curtailed because of physical handicap. The normal expectation of life is impaired. But at the same time it has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a wind fall for the victim. Statutory provisions clearly indicate the compensation must be "just" and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of profit but the same should not be a pittance. The Courts and Tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just. What would be "just" compensation is a vexed question. There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for measuring the value of human life or a limb. Measure of damages cannot be arrived at a precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of "just" compensation which is the pivotal consideration. Though by use of the expression "which appears to it to be just" a wide discretion is vested on the tribunal, the determination has to be rational, to be done by a judicious approach and not the outcome of whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness. The expression "just" denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness, and non arbitrary. If it is not so it cannot be just.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 775 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1