Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.50 seconds)Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Lata Wadhwa & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 16 August, 2001
15. Thus, if the ratio of Lata Wadhwas' case (supra) is not to be
applied in a claim petition filed under Section 163-A, where the negligence
of the driver is not established, it would still need to be seen as to whether
the contribution of a housewife is adequately factored in, to calculate the
compensation to be paid in her case.
National Insurance Company Limited vs Smt. Indu Sharma And Ors. on 18 November, 1999
7. The Tribunal, after citing from a judgment of this Court, in
National Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Indu Sharma and others
(2000 (1) PLR 417 and of the Gujarat High Court in Ramdevsing V.
Chudasma and others versus Hansrajbhai V.Kodala and another 1999
ACJ 1129, held that the following four 'things' are to be determined in a
petition filed under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988:-
Ram Partap And Ors vs Chandigarh Transport Undertaking on 5 July, 2016
As already said, as the 2nd Schedule is specific to cases where
the negligence of the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident is not
proved; hence, despite what this Court (this Bench) itself has held in Ram
Partaps' case (supra), in the present case arising from an accident which took
place in the year 1997, I find it difficult to depart from the parameters laid
10 of 12
::: Downloaded on - 22-10-2016 03:34:03 :::
FAO No.929 of 2001 11
down of the 2nd Schedule.
Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009
Yet, that multiplier has been disapproved by the Supreme Court
in Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and
another (2009) 6 SCC 121, wherein for the age group of 41 to 45 years, a
multiplier of 14 has been stipulated and for the age group of 36 to 40 years, a
multiplier of 15 is stipulated.
Master Sudeep vs Divisional Manager on 12 April, 2011
However, the rationale of Mr. Mamlis' argument, to the effect
that the amounts of compensation stipulated in the other clauses of the Act,
i.e. clauses 3 to 6, are not commensurate with current inflationary prices, is
an argument that does not apply to the present case, in which the accident
took place in 1997. Undoubtedly, the Award itself was pronounced on
06.10.2000, based on the figures given in the said Schedule which came into
effect on 14.11.1994. However, the position is to be seen as on the date of
7 of 12
::: Downloaded on - 22-10-2016 03:34:03 :::
FAO No.929 of 2001 8
the accident and in the opinion of this Court, since the accident took place
within two years and eight months from the date that the 2nd Schedule came
into effect, the observations made by their Lordships in Mallikarjuns' case
(supra), in which case the accident was of the year 2006, would not be
entirely applicable.
1