Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)
Nanak Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another on 17 January, 2014 cites

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

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2-PRTC has further argued that the Tribunal has considered only the age of the deceased while the age of the claimant has to be kept in mind for the purpose of multiplier and has relied upon the judgments in U.P. State Transport Corportation and others v. Trilok Chandra and others (1996) 4 SCC 362, Ramesh Singla and others v. Satbir Singh and another 2008 (1) SCC 667 and Shakti Devi v. New India Insurance Company Ltd. and another 2010 (14) SCC 575, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down a different provision by stating that the multiplier should be applied after taking into the consideration the age of the claimants.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 1415 - Full Document

Shakti Devi vs New India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr on 9 November, 2010

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2-PRTC has further argued that the Tribunal has considered only the age of the deceased while the age of the claimant has to be kept in mind for the purpose of multiplier and has relied upon the judgments in U.P. State Transport Corportation and others v. Trilok Chandra and others (1996) 4 SCC 362, Ramesh Singla and others v. Satbir Singh and another 2008 (1) SCC 667 and Shakti Devi v. New India Insurance Company Ltd. and another 2010 (14) SCC 575, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down a different provision by stating that the multiplier should be applied after taking into the consideration the age of the claimants.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 272 - R M Lodha - Full Document

P.S. Somanathan & Ors vs District Insurance Officers & Anr on 17 February, 2011

Learned counsel for the appellants has countered by arguing that the multiplier of 18 has to be applied instead of 16 according to the age of the deceased. He has further argued that in Sarla Verma v. DTC (2001) 6 SCC 121, P.S.Somanathan and others v. District Insurance Officer and another (2011) 3 SCC 566 and Amrit Bhanu Shali and others v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others 2012 ACJ 2002; the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that only the age of the deceased should be kept into Sharma Ashish 2014.02.13 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.5181 of 2010 -3- consideration while fixing the multiplier.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 164 - Full Document

Amrit Bhanu Shali & Ors vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors on 4 April, 2012

Learned counsel for the appellants has countered by arguing that the multiplier of 18 has to be applied instead of 16 according to the age of the deceased. He has further argued that in Sarla Verma v. DTC (2001) 6 SCC 121, P.S.Somanathan and others v. District Insurance Officer and another (2011) 3 SCC 566 and Amrit Bhanu Shali and others v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others 2012 ACJ 2002; the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that only the age of the deceased should be kept into Sharma Ashish 2014.02.13 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.5181 of 2010 -3- consideration while fixing the multiplier.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 920 - Full Document

United India Insurance Company Limited vs Raj Rani And Ors. on 24 February, 1996

In my opinion, while adopting a multiplier, the age of the deceased as well as the age group of the claimants is a valid consideration. The expectancy of life of deceased is to be taken into consideration to arrive at a conclusion as to for how many years he could have supported the claimants. So far as the claimants are concerned their age-group is required to be considered to arrive at a conclusion as to for how many years they would have survived and could have enjoyed the dependency allowance of the deceased. Keeping in view the conflicting decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and taking support from the decision of Division Bench of our High Court in United India Insurance Company Limited v Raj Rani 1998 (1) ACJ 175, in my considered view, the age of the deceased as well as the age group of the claimants is required to be taken into consideration while adopting a multiplier for determining the dependency to award compensation to the claimant.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 41 - S Saksena - Full Document

Vimal Kanwar & Ors vs Kishore Dan & Ors on 3 May, 2013

Learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that Sharma Ashish 2014.02.13 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.5181 of 2010 -4- under conventional heads only an amount of `4,000/- has been awarded and has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vimal Kanwar and others vs. Kishore Dan and others, (2013-3) PLR 776.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 886 - Full Document

Manjit Kaur And Others vs Ramesh Kumar And Others on 8 January, 2014

Keeping in view the entire conspectus of facts, I award `1,00,000/- to the mother on account of love and affection. I also add future prospects in the income with the addition of 50% in view of the observations made by this Court in F.A.O. No.2990 of 2011, titled as Manjit Kaur and others vs. Ramesh Kumar and others, decided on 08.01.2014. For the purpose of funeral expenses and transportation, I award `21,000/- more. The enhanced amount shall be paid along with the same rate of interest as awarded by the Tribunal from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization. It is made clear that apart from the amounts awarded individually the apportionment and the management of the enhanced compensation amount would be as per the direction of the Tribunal.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 109 - Full Document
1