Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (0.35 seconds)

Smt. Uma Devi And Ors vs Ashok Yadav And Ors. 27 Mac/40/2018 ... on 12 January, 2018

7.1. During cross examination, she has admitted that she is not an eye witness to this accident and even is not in possession of DL of the deceased and was not aware as to whether deceased was holding any DL. She has deposed that deceased was unmarried and was living in live-in relationship with one Ms. Neeraj whose particulars and whereabouts are not known. Deceased was working in Delhi and was also living in Delhi at the time of death, but she is not aware about his residential address at Delhi. It is further deposed that he both sons are married. It is admitted that she has not made any complaint with police regarding living relationship of deceased with Ms. Neeraj and she came to know about this fact when deceased did not take interest in his marriage and she saw photograph of Neeraj. It is further deposed that the deceased was studied upto 8th class but she has no proof of his educational qualification or income. It is further deposed that she has 10 bigha lands in the name of her father-in-law but her husband is not doing any agriculture work. She along-with her husband sell milk MAC No. 1333/16 Smt. Santa & Ors Vs. Sudesh Kumar Rajora & Ors. MAC No. 1334/16 Smt. Rajo Devi & Ors Vs. Sudesh Kumar Rajora & Ors. MAC No. 405/16 Jitender Vs. Sudesh Kumar Rajora & Ors. MAC No. 1246/16 Manish Kumar & Ors Vs. Dharamveer Singh & Ors. 16/57 by rearing buffaloes to earn her livelihood, but it is denied that both the claimants were not financially dependent upon the deceased.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 32 - Full Document

Reshma Kumari & Ors vs Madan Mohan & Anr on 2 April, 2013

MAC No. 1333/16 Smt. Santa & Ors Vs. Sudesh Kumar Rajora & Ors. MAC No. 1334/16 Smt. Rajo Devi & Ors Vs. Sudesh Kumar Rajora & Ors. MAC No. 405/16 Jitender Vs. Sudesh Kumar Rajora & Ors. MAC No. 1246/16 Manish Kumar & Ors Vs. Dharamveer Singh & Ors. 44/57 Necessary deductions have to be made out of the income of the deceased towards her personal expenses as per the case titled Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65. Deceased was married and left behind husband and two minor children who were dependent upon her, however husband is not to be considered dependent upon wife. Even husband Manish Kumar has admitted during cross examination that he has been earning Rs. 50,000/- pm from his job and has separate source of his earning. As such, dependents on the deceased were only her two minor children due to 1/3th earning of the deceased has to be deducted out of her yearly earnings towards personal expenses. To apply this deduction, earning of the deceased is also to be determined. The deceased was teacher by profession. She was teacher on contract basis with Education Department, Gautam Budh Nagar and document Ex.PW5/28 has proved this fact. She was drawing salary or remuneration of Rs. 7,000/- pm. She was Graduate and her earning of Rs. 7,000/- pm stands proved which comes to Rs. 84,000/- per annum.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 2700 - R M Lodha - Full Document

New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Smt. Shanti Pathak And Ors on 10 July, 2007

No. 79/2014 NS 413/15, New India Assurance Company Ltd. V. Shanti Pathak (Smt) (2007) 10 SCC 1 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Shyam Singh (2011) 7 SCC 65. As per document Ex.PW1/1, Smt. Santa was aged about 40 years on 1.1.1995 when this document was prepared, whereas this accident took place on 13.12.13 and age of dependent comes to less than 58 years at the time of accident and same age is considered for the purpose of this claim.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 504 - A Pasayat - Full Document

National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Shyam Singh & Ors on 4 July, 2011

No. 79/2014 NS 413/15, New India Assurance Company Ltd. V. Shanti Pathak (Smt) (2007) 10 SCC 1 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Shyam Singh (2011) 7 SCC 65. As per document Ex.PW1/1, Smt. Santa was aged about 40 years on 1.1.1995 when this document was prepared, whereas this accident took place on 13.12.13 and age of dependent comes to less than 58 years at the time of accident and same age is considered for the purpose of this claim.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 189 - M Sharma - Full Document
1   2 3 Next