Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.24 seconds)
Jyoti Pal And Others Lrs Of Deceased ... vs Rais on 22 May, 2024 cites

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

28. In order to consider the age of deceased, the relevant document is his 10th class certificate (Ex. PW1/4), wherein his recorded date of birth is mentioned as 01.05.1981. Date of accident being 25.08.2021, the age of deceased was more than 40 years but less than 41 years as on the date of accident. Hence, the multiplier of 15 would be applicable in view of the case "Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation", 2009 ACJ 1298 SC which has been reaffirmed by the pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.", passed in SLP(Civil) No. 25590/14 decided on 31.10.17.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 20141 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. vs Jaibir Singh & Ors. on 8 January, 2021

(i) The petitioner is directed to open a Motor Accident Claims Annuity (Term) Deposit Account (MACAD) in terms of order dated 07.12.2018 of Hon'ble Justice J.R. Midha in case titled as Rajesh Tyagi and Others Vs. Jaibir Singh and Others F.A.O No. 842/03 as per clause 31 of MCTAP and form VIII titled as Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme as directed in the said order.
Delhi High Court Cites 64 - Cited by 1363 - J R Midha - Full Document

Anjali vs Lokendra Rathod on 6 December, 2022

19. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 enjoins upon the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable. The guiding principles for assessment of "just and reasonable compensation" in fatal case has been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in case titled as Smt. Anjali & Ors., Vs. Lokendra Rathod & Ors, in Civil Appeal No. 9014 of 202, decided on 06.12.2022 that: -
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 31 - K Murari - Full Document

K. Suresh vs New India Assurance Co.Ltd & Anr on 19 October, 2012

20. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the compensation should be just and is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be niggardly or a pittance. Reliance is placed on 2012 (8) SLT 676 titled K. Suresh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The aforesaid Principle of law Jyoti Pal & Ors. Vs. Rais & Ors. Judge MACT ­02(North) Page 14 of 33 MACP No. 448/21; FIR No. 713/21; PS. Alipur DOD: 22.05.2024 has also been reiterated by a landmark judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in 2017 (13) SCALE 12 : 2017 XI AD (SC) 113 titled National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. Accordingly, the quantum of appropriate and adequate compensation to the victim of road accident is to be derived after assessment of various relevant parameters, as per law. Hereinafter, assessment is divided into several criteria, as applicable to the facts of the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 236 - D Misra - Full Document

National Insurance Company Ltd vs Pranay Sethi And Others on 22 June, 2022

28. In order to consider the age of deceased, the relevant document is his 10th class certificate (Ex. PW1/4), wherein his recorded date of birth is mentioned as 01.05.1981. Date of accident being 25.08.2021, the age of deceased was more than 40 years but less than 41 years as on the date of accident. Hence, the multiplier of 15 would be applicable in view of the case "Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation", 2009 ACJ 1298 SC which has been reaffirmed by the pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.", passed in SLP(Civil) No. 25590/14 decided on 31.10.17.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1946 - J R Dua - Full Document
1   2 Next