Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.59 seconds)United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Veluchamy And Anr. on 29 December, 2004
8.The learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company
also referred the judgment of this Court in the case of United
India Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Veluchamy and another
reported in 2005 (1) TN MAC 87 (DB) and argued that the
multiplier method cannot be mechanically applied in all cases of
injury or permanent disablement but depends upon the factors such
as nature and extent of disablement. Hence, he made strong
objection to apply the multiplier method in the present case. Now,
it is for this Court to decide the functional disability based on the
injury sustained by the claimant.
Syed Sadiq Etc vs Divisional Manager,United India ... on 16 January, 2014
11. As far as income is concerned, the age of the injured at
the time of accident was 35 years. The Court below has fixed a sum
of Rs.5,000/- as notional income and awarded the compensation. In
the present case, the accident occurred in the year 2016, fixing a
sum of Rs.5,000/- as notional income for a person aged about 35
years appears to be very low. Even, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case
of Syed Sadiq vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance
Company reported in 2014 1 TNMAC 459 SC has fixed a sum of
Rs.6,500/- as notional income for the accident occurred in the year
2008 for a Vegetable Vendor. In the present case, the injured was
running a grocery shop. The avocation of the appellant as well as
Vegetable Vendor can be treated equally by considering both the
avocation at the same level by providing appropriate increase for
the cost of living for the past eight years. Hence, this Court inclined
to fix a sum of Rs.8,000/- as notional income of the appellant for
the purpose of awarding compensation.
Sri Laxman @ Laxman Mourya vs Divisional Manager, ... on 8 November, 2011
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant also relied
upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Sri Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager,
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd & another reported in 2012 (1) TN
MAC 28 (SC), wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken
disability as to right lower limb, 25% due to urethral injury and 38%
as whole body disability and awarded the compensation by applying
the multiplier method. Therefore, the same principle is applicable in
the present case while determine the compensation amount for loss
of income due to the disability.
The Coinage Act, 2011
Section 173 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009
12.As the age of the injured was 35 years completed at the
time of accident, the multiplier applicable is 16 as held by the
http://www.judis.nic.in
9/14
C.M.A.(MD)No.368 of 2019
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of (Sarla Verma & others vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation & another) reported in 2009 (2)
TNMAC 1. Further, by taking the notional income of the injured as
Rs.8,000/- and the loss of income is calculated in the manner stated
below:
Kaluram Rathore vs Neelam Chand Kirar And Anr. on 22 March, 2004
7. The learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance
Company relied upon the judgment of full bench held in Kaluram
Rathore Vs. Neelam Chand Kirar & another reported in 2004
(2) TN MAC 16 (FB) (MP) and Paragraph 9 of the above judgment
reads as follows:-
1