RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
Jyoti Devi – Appellant
Versus
Lalan Kumar Rai – Respondent
Ramesh Chand Malviya, J. – Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “MV Act”) on behalf of appellants for enhancing the compensation amount awarded to the appellants/claimants by the learned Additional District Judge-II cum-Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Samastipur (hereinafter referred to as “learned Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 116 of 2010 vide judgment dated 28. 04. 2016 and award dated 14.12.2016.
3. The learned Tribunal held that the appellants are entitled to receive Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation and accordingly the Legal Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd./ respondent no. 2 and Legal Manager Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd./ respondent no. 4 has been directed to make payment of the compensation amount as per the order forthwith, from the date of filing of the claim petition within three months from the receipt of the judgment of the learned Tribunal.
4. The details of the calculation of compensation amount made by the learned Tribunal are as under: –
| Sr. no. | Heads | Calculation | |
Shyam Nath Sah vs. Shankar Kumar Gupta
Kirti vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Sanichari Devi vs. Sanjay Kumar Yadav
Dukhni Devi vs. Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd.
National Insurance Co. vs. Pranay Seti
Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram
United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Satindar Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur
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.