Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.23 seconds)The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Subhagwanti & Others(With Connected ... on 24 February, 1966
In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti and Ors. , the Supreme Court described the shifting of the burden, relying on Halsbury's Laws of English, 2nd Ed., Vol. 23, as under:
Darshan & Others (Smt.) vs Union Of India & Ors. on 1 May, 1999
26. The next issue is on what basis should compensation be awarded to Puran's parents? At the outset, it should be clear that compensation is available where there is a tortious dereliction of public duty on the part of the State involving the infringment of a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. See, e.g., All India lawyers Union v. Union of India and Ors. ; Darshan (supra); M.S. Grewal v. Deep Chand Sood and Ors. .
Sushila Devi And Ors. vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 13 December, 1984
19. In the present petition, it is difficult to determine the exact sequence of events that led to little Puran's death, as well as the extent of care the respondents had exercised in ensuring that the manholes were properly covered. This rationale, as per Sushila Devi (supra), is adequate in and of itself to allow this Court to infer that the respondents were negligence.
Sundara Shetty vs K. Sanjiva Rao And Ors. on 29 June, 1981
For instance, in Sundara Shetty v. K Sanjiva Rao , a Division Bench of Katnataka High Court held that:
Rahul Mehra And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 4 October, 2004
In Rahul Mehra (supra), the Board of Control For Cricket in India (BCCI), although a private organization, was found to perform several public functions apart from its wholly private functions. This Court held that the BCCI was amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 only in regard to its public functions, but not its private functions such as private contracts, internal rules, etc. and other matters not concerning the public.
M.S. Grewal & Anr vs Deep Chand Sood & Ors on 24 August, 2001
In M.S. Grewal (supra) fourteen children drowned in a river during a school picnic as a result of the school's negligence. The Supreme Court awarded Rs. 5 lakhs to each family, partly on the basis that the school was one of the most affluent in the country and the deceased children's earning potential was significant. Therefore, the method of calculating the compensation for pecuniary loss of dependency entails the examination of Puran's potential earning capacity had he lived to adulthood. The petitioner No. 1, Puran's father, was working in a market as a Security Guard and was earning approximately Rs 4,000/- per month. The late Puran, who was in the 3rd Standard, when he passed away, was an excellent student. In the previous academic year, he was ranked First in his class. Therefore, we can safely assume that Puran as an adult would have earned at least as much as his father, if not more. So, as evidenced by his academic skills, Puran's father's salary can be used as a starting base for calculating the compensation for pecuniary loss of dependency. The multiplicand would be the expected annual income less what he required for himself. Since, this expected income would only arise when Puran grew up to be an adult, it would be safe to assume that his personal expenditure would be higher. True, he would be contributing to the household, but his contribution in my view would definitely not exceed half of his income. It must be remembered that here we are concerned with compensation for pecuniary loss of dependency of Puran's parents. For some stretch of time Puran's father would be earning and his dependency would not be much. Furthermore, Puran would have married and would have had to support his wife and children. So, the assumption that, in the maximum, Puran's parents would have lost only half of Puran's expected annual income, would not be an unreasonable one. Thus, the multiplicand would work out to Rs. 24,000/- (4000 x 12 x 1/2). The multiplicand and is to be multiplied by the multiplier of 15 as derived from the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in respect of victim in the age group of up to 15 years. Therefore, Puran's parents would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,60,000/- (24000x15) for compensation for pecuniary loss of dependency.
Smt. Kamla Devi vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr. on 10 September, 2004
31. Calculating the compensation for pecuniary loss of dependency is somewhat more complicated. Whereas Kamla Devi (supra) involved an earning adult whose death had an immediate financial impact on his family, the present petition involves the death of a small child who was not contributing to the household income and who would have been unable to do so for many more years. A somewhat different approach would be needed.
Smt. Kumari vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Others on 14 January, 1992
35. The only remaining question is which of the respondents is responsible for paying the above compensation to petitioners in the first instance? Whereas in Kumari (supra), there was a dispute as to which of the respondents was responsible for maintaining the safety of the sewerage tank at issue, in the present petition it is abundantly clear from the terms of the Agreement that Sulabh is solely responsible for the maintenance and supervision of the toilet complex in Block F-7, owned by the Corporation, as concluded above. Accordingly, Sulabh is directed to pay the entire sum of Rs. 5,13,801/- (with simple interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 19.3.2005 i.e., the date of this petition till payment) to the petitioners. This, of course, does not foreclose any claim that Sulabh may have against the Corporation in view of their relationship under contract in respect of the payment they are required to make by virtue of this judgment. Sulabh and the Corporation may have their inter se rights and liabilities sorted out elsewhere in accordance with law. But, with that the petitioners have no concern.