Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.31 seconds)
Veenthkumar.S vs Susheela on 1 September, 2025 cites

Beli Ram vs Rajinder Kumar on 23 September, 2020

In addition the case relied in 2020 ACJ 3000, between Beli Ram Vs. Rajinder Kumar and another, wherein SCCH 15 21 MVC No.1009/2021 also similar observations is made holding that insurance company was exonerated from the liability in the case of not holding driving license of the driver. The principal of law laid down in the said decisions is also squarely applicable to the present case. Hence, the respondent No.2 insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner and is not liable indemnify the insured. Therefore, respondent No.1 herself is liable to pay 50% of the compensation amount to the petitioner. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.2 and 3 "Partly in the Affirmative".
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 89 - S K Kaul - Full Document

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs Union Of India on 16 November, 2021

16. Accordingly, above mentioned disability can be read in evidence in terms of the observations made by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Limited Vs Union of India. PW.2 has admitted that he has assessed physical disability and not functional disability. Hence, the evidence discloses that the petitioner can continue his work obviously with some difficulties and hence no addition is made towards future prospects. As per the evidence of PW.2 he has assessed the disability at 50% and if the same taken to the whole body it can be reduced to 1/3rd. Hence the disability is taken at 16.6% to the whole body for assessing compensation. As already discussed the age of the petitioner SCCH 15 16 MVC No.1009/2021 as on the date of the accident was 17 years.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 5 - Cited by 320 - Full Document

Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009

Therefore, in view of the law, laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been upheld by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent judgment dated 31.10.2017 given in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, the multiplier of '18' is applicable for calculating the loss of future earnings of petitioner arising out of his above disability. The loss of future earnings of petitioner due to his above injury and permanent physical disability comes to Rs.5,19,912/- (Rs.14,500/- X 12 X 18 X 16.6%) and the same is awarded to him as compensation under this head.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 20141 - R V Raveendran - Full Document
1   2 Next