Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Puttamma VS K. L. Narayana Reddy...
2013 8 Supreme 795 : The court cannot reduce the multiplier as laid down in the Sarla Verma case. The Supreme Court in Reshma Kumari (supra) affirmed the guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma, holding that the multiplier indicated in Column (4) of the table prepared in Sarla Verma must be followed for claims under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Court explicitly stated that in the absence of any specific reason and evidence on record, the Tribunal or Court should not apply a split multiplier in routine course and should apply the multiplier as per the decision in Sarla Verma, which has been affirmed in Reshma Kumari. This establishes that the multiplier from Sarla Verma is binding and not subject to arbitrary reduction by the courts unless there is a specific reason and evidence to justify deviation.Checking relevance for National Insurance Company Limited VS Pranay Sethi...
Checking relevance for N. JAYASREE VS CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ...
2021 7 Supreme 481 : The court cannot reduce the multiplier as laid down in the Sarla Verma case without specific reason and evidence on record. In the case of K.R. Madhusudhan v. Administrative Officer, the Supreme Court held that in the absence of any specific reason and evidence, the tribunal or court should not apply a split multiplier in routine course and should apply the multiplier as per the decision in Sarla Verma, as affirmed in Reshma Kumari. The High Court was not justified in applying a split multiplier, as it departed from the established multiplier method without proper justification or consideration of future prospects of the deceased. The multiplier of 11 is applicable for a deceased aged between 51 and 55 years, as specified in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, and the Tribunal did not err in accepting this multiplier.Checking relevance for Maya Singh VS Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ...
2025 3 Supreme 506 : The court cannot reduce the multiplier as laid down in Sarla Verma case without recording special reasons. In normal course, compensation is to be calculated by applying the multiplier as per the judgment in Sarla Verma, and any deviation from this method, such as using a split multiplier, warrants special reasons to be recorded. The High Court''''s application of a split multiplier without such reasons was held to be erroneous and contrary to law.Checking relevance for Reshma Kumari VS Madan Mohan...
Checking relevance for Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , Represented By Its Duly Authorized Officer VS Abdul Khader, S/o. Ali Muhammed...
2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 456 : The court held that the multiplier method laid down in Sarla Verma (supra) must be followed uniformly and that it is necessary to standardise the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculation being adopted. The court explicitly stated that even if the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardise the multiplier, and that the multiplier method adopted in Sarla Verma (supra) was reiterated and approved in subsequent judgments including Reshma Kumari (supra) and Pranay Sethi (supra). The court further emphasized that following the multiplier method will subserve the cause of justice and avoid unnecessary contentions before Tribunals and Courts. Therefore, the court cannot reduce the multiplier as laid down in Sarla Verma case, as it is a standardized and approved method to ensure uniformity and consistency.Checking relevance for Kamalavva W/O Buddappa Vajjal VS Nagesh S/O Yeshwant Davalatkar...
2021 0 Supreme(Kar) 140 : The Hon''''ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others (2017 ACJ 2700) has held that the selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma''''s case read with paragraph 42 of that judgment, and that the age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. The Court further emphasized that the use of the words ''''shall be guided by'''' leaves no scope for any departure in the matter of adoption of the multiplicand and it ought to be in consonance with the law declared by the Hon''''ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi’s case alone, and any departure would be in the teeth of the law declared by the Hon''''ble Apex Court. The Court also held that in the absence of any specific reason and evidence on record, the tribunal or court should not apply split multiplier in routine course and should apply multiplier as per decision of the Hon''''ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma. Therefore, the court cannot reduce the multiplier as laid down in Sarla Verma case without specific reason and evidence on record.
