Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.23 seconds)Raj Kumar vs Ajay Kumar & Anr on 18 October, 2010
In Raj Kumar V. Ajay Kumar (supra), the court noted (in para 21)
that the second schedule appended to MV Act, with reference to Section
163A, inter alia, refers to the first schedule under Workmen's
Compensation Act, 1923 in the context of loss of earning capacity in
cases of permanent total or partial disability, and observed (in para 16)
thus:
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Santosh Devi vs National Insurance Co.Ltd.& Ors on 23 April, 2012
"8. Since, the Court in Santosh Devi case (supra)
actually intended to follow the principle in the case of
salaried persons as laid in Sarla Verma's case (supra) and
to make it applicable also to the self-employed and persons
on fixed wages, it is clarified that the increase in the case
of those groups is not 30% always; it will also have a
reference to the age. In other words, in the case of self-
employed or persons with fixed wages, in case, the
deceased victim was below 40 years, there must be an
addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while
computing future prospects. Needless to say that the actual
income should be income after paying the tax, if any.
Addition should be 30% in case the deceased was in the
age group of 40 to 50 years.
Reshma Kumari & Ors vs Madan Mohan & Anr on 2 April, 2013
16. Against the above noted backdrop, a learned Single Judge of this
Court, by order dated 12.01.2015 in MAC.APP.No.189/2014 (HDFC
Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Smt. Lalta Devi & Ors.) held that in
view of the judicial hierarchical discipline, as explained in Union of
India & Ors. V. S.K. Kapoor (2011) 4 SCC 589, the three Judge Bench
decision in Reshma Kumari (supra), earlier in time in relation to Rajesh
(supra), is to be presently treated as binding precedent, till such time the
law on the subject of future prospects for those who are "self-employed"
Sanjay Verma vs Haryana Roadways on 29 January, 2014
15. The divergence of opinion in Reshma Kumari (supra) and Rajesh
(supra) was noticed by the Supreme Court in cases report as Sanjay
Verma v. Haryana Roadways (2014) 3 SCC 210, National Insurance
Company Ltd. V. Pushpa & Ors. (2015) 9 SCC 166 and Shashikala V.
Gangalakshmamma (2015) 9 SCC 150.
National Insurance Co Ltd. vs Pushpa Devi & Ors. on 6 February, 2014
The question of manner of
addition of income of future prospects in the cases of those who are
"self-employed" or working on a "fixed salary" was referred to a larger
Bench by order dated 02.07.2014 in the case of Pushpa (supra), and
again by order dated 13.03.2015 in the case of Shashikala (supra). The
issue is yet to be finally determined on such references by a larger bench
of the Supreme Court.
Smt Shashikala vs Gangalakshmamma on 15 July, 2013
The question of manner of
addition of income of future prospects in the cases of those who are
"self-employed" or working on a "fixed salary" was referred to a larger
Bench by order dated 02.07.2014 in the case of Pushpa (supra), and
again by order dated 13.03.2015 in the case of Shashikala (supra). The
issue is yet to be finally determined on such references by a larger bench
of the Supreme Court.
Lalta Devi & Anr. vs Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co Ltd & Ors. on 12 January, 2015
17. Following the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the case
of Lalta Devi (supra), and in view of the fact that in the present case, the
appellant himself pleaded that he was working at a fixed salary of
₹5,000/- per month and led evidence only to such effect, not showing in
any manner that his salary was subject to any periodic increase, the
contention that future prospects should have been taken into account by
the Tribunal is rejected.
Union Of India & Ors vs S.K.Kapoor on 16 March, 2011
16. Against the above noted backdrop, a learned Single Judge of this
Court, by order dated 12.01.2015 in MAC.APP.No.189/2014 (HDFC
Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Smt. Lalta Devi & Ors.) held that in
view of the judicial hierarchical discipline, as explained in Union of
India & Ors. V. S.K. Kapoor (2011) 4 SCC 589, the three Judge Bench
decision in Reshma Kumari (supra), earlier in time in relation to Rajesh
(supra), is to be presently treated as binding precedent, till such time the
law on the subject of future prospects for those who are "self-employed"