SANJAY KAROL, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
K. Nagendra – Appellant
Versus
New India Insurance Co. Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KAROL, J.
Leave granted.
1. These appeals are directed against the common final judgment and order dated 25th September 2019 in Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 2947 of 2017 with Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 1024 of 2018, passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, which in turn were preferred against the judgment and order dated 14th December 2016 passed in Claim Petition No. 566/2014 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and Addl. MACT, Channapatna.
2. The brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that on 7th October 2014, the deceased, namely Srinivasa alias Murthy who was riding on his motorcycle and was hit by the offending vehicle, bearing registration number KA-52- 9099, in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in his death on the spot.
3. The Appellant(s) (dependents of the deceased) filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,00,000/- along with an interest @ 18%, submitting therein that the deceased was the only earning member of the family, running a business of Shamiyana Centre and a Ration Shop; and earning up to Rs. 15,000/- per month.
4. The Tribunal, by its order dated 14th December 2016 awarded the Appe
Amrit Paul and Anr. v. TATA AIG General Insurance Company & Ors.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh
New India Assurance Co. v. Kamla
Parminder Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.