Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 39 (1.16 seconds)National Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Farzana Ors. on 14 July, 2009
22. On 02.10.2011, a motor vehicular accident took place involving
negligent driving of a vehicle bearing registration as DL-1YB 6781
admittedly insured against third party risk with the National Insurance
Company Ltd. (third respondent) for the period in question, resulting
in death of eleven years old Gautam Joshi. His parents (appellants)
had instituted an accident claim case (suit no.38/12/12) on 14.12.2011
impleading the insurer, driver and owner of the offending vehicle as
respondents. By judgment dated 31.05.2014, the tribunal upheld the
case about the death having occurred due to negligent driving, the said
finding having attained finality. The tribunal awarded compensation
in the sum of Rs.3,75,000/- primarily following the view taken in the
case of Farzana (supra).
R.K. Malik & Anr vs Kiran Pal & Ors on 15 May, 2009
10. The insurer argues that in case of death of a child, this was not a
correct method of calculating compensation and that the ruling in R K
Malik (supra) should have been followed.
Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 48 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009
Noticeably, in Sarla Verma (supra) the Supreme Court specified the
multiplier of 18 for cases where the deceased was in the age-group of
15 years‟ to 20 years‟ old.
Reshma Kumari & Ors vs Madan Mohan & Anr on 2 April, 2013
The decision in Sarla Verma was upheld by a bench of three
Hon‟ble Judges of the Supreme Court in Reshma Kumari v. Madan
Mohan (supra).
Lata Wadhwa & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 16 August, 2001
As in Lata Wadhwa (supra),
the claim for pecuniary damages arising out of death of children of this
age group cannot be at par with the lower age groups falling in the first
and second category. Therefore, the pecuniary loss to estate due to
their death would deserve to be worked out by applying a higher
multiplier on the notional income (of non-earning persons) unless, of
course, case is properly made out for higher considerations.
Section 168 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Hansrajbhai V. Kodala & Ors on 4 April, 2001
30. The structured formula contained in Section 163A, enforced
through the prescription in second schedule has been found to be full
of errors or defects and, consequently, adversely commented upon in a
number of cases by the Supreme Court [UPSRTC Vs. Trilok Chandra
(1996) 4 SCC 362; Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hansrajbhai v.
Kodala (2001) 5 SCC 175; Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121;
Puttamma v. K.L. Narayana Reddy (2013) 15 SCC 45]. The said
special provision was inserted in 1994 with the cap of ₹40,000/- on
the income to be considered for calculating the loss of dependency (or
income) in fatal accident cases.