Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.24 seconds)Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009
The amount as submitted by counsel for Insurance Company and the original claimants will have to be re-calibrated as per the judgment of Sarla Verma (Smt) (supra) National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017(0) Supreme (SC) 1050 and the subsequent judgments of the Apex Court, the deduction of certain perks can be made and therefore, the total income of the deceased would not be Rs.10,000/- as claimed but would be Rs.7,000/- as held by the Tribunal . The amount would be Rs.7,000/- as certain amounts will have to be deducted from his salary. He being under the age group of below 30 years, namely he was 27 years of age, hence the multiplier applicable will be 17. 50% of the income will have to be added towards prospective income as he was in job which would come to Rs.10,500/- out of which 1/3rd would have to be deducted which would come to Rs.7,000/-. Hence, estate would be entitled to a sum of Rs.84,000 x 17 = Rs.14,28,000/- to that as the widow lost her husband at a young age, as per the recent decision, under all conventional heads a sum of Rs.70,000/- is awarded to her. The amount of Rs.14,98,000/-/- to which a sum of Rs. 50,000 additional to the minor child is ordered for loosing her father at the age of eight months Rs.14,98,000/- + Rs.50,000/- would be awardable and available to the corpus of the deceased namely all the legal representatives. Out of the aforesaid amount, a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- which has been already deposited in the case of father and brother is awarded to the father and the brother collectively.
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Pranay Sethi Son Of Late Prashant Sethi ... on 20 April, 2011
The amount as submitted by counsel for Insurance Company and the original claimants will have to be re-calibrated as per the judgment of Sarla Verma (Smt) (supra) National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017(0) Supreme (SC) 1050 and the subsequent judgments of the Apex Court, the deduction of certain perks can be made and therefore, the total income of the deceased would not be Rs.10,000/- as claimed but would be Rs.7,000/- as held by the Tribunal . The amount would be Rs.7,000/- as certain amounts will have to be deducted from his salary. He being under the age group of below 30 years, namely he was 27 years of age, hence the multiplier applicable will be 17. 50% of the income will have to be added towards prospective income as he was in job which would come to Rs.10,500/- out of which 1/3rd would have to be deducted which would come to Rs.7,000/-. Hence, estate would be entitled to a sum of Rs.84,000 x 17 = Rs.14,28,000/- to that as the widow lost her husband at a young age, as per the recent decision, under all conventional heads a sum of Rs.70,000/- is awarded to her. The amount of Rs.14,98,000/-/- to which a sum of Rs. 50,000 additional to the minor child is ordered for loosing her father at the age of eight months Rs.14,98,000/- + Rs.50,000/- would be awardable and available to the corpus of the deceased namely all the legal representatives. Out of the aforesaid amount, a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- which has been already deposited in the case of father and brother is awarded to the father and the brother collectively.
The Fatal Accidents Act, 1855
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Mahant Dhangir And Another vs Madan Mohan And Others on 28 October, 1987
This exercise is undertaken in view of the settled legal position enunciated in Mahant Dhangir and another Vs. Madan Mohan and others, 1987 (Supp) SCC 528, Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi and others Vs. Kasam Daud Kumbhar and others, 2015 (1) TAC 673 (SC), New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Resha Devi and others, 2017 (2) AICC 1808, and Surendra Singh and another Vs. Vijay Singh and others, 2018 (3) TAC 226 (All.).
Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi & Ors vs Kasam Daud Kumbhar & Ors on 3 February, 2015
This exercise is undertaken in view of the settled legal position enunciated in Mahant Dhangir and another Vs. Madan Mohan and others, 1987 (Supp) SCC 528, Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi and others Vs. Kasam Daud Kumbhar and others, 2015 (1) TAC 673 (SC), New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Resha Devi and others, 2017 (2) AICC 1808, and Surendra Singh and another Vs. Vijay Singh and others, 2018 (3) TAC 226 (All.).
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Rekha Devi And Others on 30 May, 2012
This exercise is undertaken in view of the settled legal position enunciated in Mahant Dhangir and another Vs. Madan Mohan and others, 1987 (Supp) SCC 528, Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi and others Vs. Kasam Daud Kumbhar and others, 2015 (1) TAC 673 (SC), New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Resha Devi and others, 2017 (2) AICC 1808, and Surendra Singh and another Vs. Vijay Singh and others, 2018 (3) TAC 226 (All.).
Section 8 in The Factories Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
Manjuri Bera vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. And Anr on 30 March, 2007
However, as a special case, the decisions in the cases of Manjuri Bera( supra) and Sarla Verma and Ors. Versus Delhi Transport Corporation (supra) where it has been held as a cardinal principle of law that the father and brothers are entitled to compensation as legal representatives under the head of loss to dependency provided they prove their dependency on the deceased. In this case the deceased was staying separately from the brother, sister and his father. He was recently married, according to the widow who has withstood the oral testimony and the cross examination that she had strained relations with her in-laws. The deceased also was not having cordial relation with his father.