Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.28 seconds)
Jaleel vs The Manager on 15 November, 2011 cites

Ramachandrappa S/O Muniyappa vs The Regional Manager United India ... on 28 May, 2010

The Tribunal took note of the fact that M.A.C.A.Nos.528 & 2331 of 2012 26 despite taking up such contentions regarding the occupation and income the petitioner had failed to adduce any evidence whatsoever to prove the occupation and income. He did not adduce any documentary evidence and he had not mounted the box. In such circumstances, though we are of the view that the Tribunal cannot be said to have committed a legal error, we are of the view that while fixing the quantum of compensation payable in respect of a particular application filed under Section 166 of the Act, the court or the Tribunal has a duty to pay just compensation in terms of the provisions of Section 168 of the M.V Act commensurate with the injuries sustained. While discharging such burden we cannot lost sight of the decision of the Apex Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [(2011) 13 SCC 236]. That was a case where for the purpose of computing the compensation in respect of an accident which occurred in the year 2004 the Apex Court fixed notionally the monthly income of a coolie of at M.A.C.A.Nos.528 & 2331 of 2012 27 Rs.4,500/-.
Karnataka High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 59 - Full Document

National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Kusum Rai & Ors on 24 March, 2006

It is thus obvious that even after referring to its earlier decision M.A.C.A.Nos.528 & 2331 of 2012 20 in Swaran Singh's case the Hon'ble Apex Court relied on two of its subsequent decisions viz., in Kusum Rai's case (supra) and Ishwar Chandra's case (supra) found that when the driver of a vehicle which involved in an accident was not having a valid driving licence and its owner failed to discharge his statutory burden under Section 5 of the Act the Insurance Company, the Tribunal could certainly make the insurer to satisfy the award in respect of a third party at the first instance and then to recover the same from the owner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 535 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 Next