SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1988 Supreme(AP) 134

M.JAGANNADHA RAO
Panjala Rajaiah – Appellant
Versus
Mamidi Manikya – Respondent


M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) IN this appeal, the question arises with reference to the liability of the insurance company under S 95 (2) (a) and s 95 (2) (b) and as to the liability of the company under a policy of comprehensive insurance and as to when the Company can be said to have undertaken additional liability over and above the statutory liability.

( 2 ) THE appeal is by the claimant aged 60 years (in O P No 59/85) consequent to the death of his wife (aged 55 yrs), his son and daughter-in-law, in a single accident on 12-4-1981. The total claim in the tribunal is in a sum of Rs 40,000-/ out of which Rs 15. 000/- was awarded i e. Rs 8,000/- due to death of wife Rs 3,500/- as loss of consortium, Rs. 3,500/- towards pain and suffering.

( 3 ) IN the appeal, it is argued for the appellant by Sri K. Mallikarjuna Sastri that compensation should have been awarded properly by taking into account the loss of services of the wife. It is also argued that the appellant is entitled to compensation consequent on the death of his son and daughter-in-law. On the other hand it is argued for the respondents that the appellant is not entitled to any compensation for the death of his daughter





























































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top