LawCite Search |
LawCite Markup Tool |
Help |
Feedback
Law Cite |
Case Name | Citation(s) | Court | Jurisdiction | Date | Full Text | Citation Index † | |
SC; (v) Sarla Verma v DTC |
|
circa 2009 |
|
||||
Nance v British Columbia Electric Railway Co Ltd |
|
United Kingdom | circa 1951 | LexisNexis / Westlaw |
|
||
General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v Susamma Thomas (Mrs) |
[1993] INSC 2; |
Supreme Court of India | India | 6 Jan 1993 | LIIofIndia |
|
|
Pickett v British Rail Engineering Ltd |
|
United Kingdom | circa 1980 | LexisNexis / Westlaw |
|
||
Gammell v Wilson |
|
United Kingdom | circa 1982 | LexisNexis / Westlaw |
|
||
UP State Road Transport Corporation v Trilok Chandra |
|
circa 1996 |
|
||||
Reshma Kumari Vs Madan Mohan & Anr |
|
circa 2015 |
|
||||
New India Assurance Co Ltd v Shanti Pathak (Smt) |
|
circa 2007 |
|
||||
Air 2005 SC 2157 |
|
Supreme Court of India | India | circa 2005 |
|
||
Up v Ramesh Chandra Sharma |
[1996] INSC 896; |
Supreme Court of India | India | 6 Aug 1996 | LIIofIndia |
|
|
National Insurance Co Ltd v Shyam Singh |
|
circa 2011 |
|
||||
Ramesh Singh & Anr v Satbir Singh & Anr |
|
circa 2008 |
|
||||
Air 2005 SC 2985 |
|
Supreme Court of India | India | circa 2005 |
|
||
(2012) 11 SCC 738 |
|
circa 2012 |
|
||||
SC; (ii) Fakeerappa v Karnataka Cement |
|
circa 2004 |
|
||||
PS Somanathan v Distt Insurance Officer |
|
circa 2011 |
|
||||
Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra's and New India Assurance Co Ltd Vs Charlie |
|
circa 2009 |
|
||||
Bilkish v United India Insurance |
|
circa 2008 |
|
||||
Schedule and the 'multiplier' figures got wrongly typed as 15, 16, 17, 18, 17, 16, 15, 13, 11, 8, 5 & 5 instead of 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 12, 10, 8, 6 and 5 Another noticeable incongruity is, having prescribed the notional minimum income of non-earning persons as MAC Appeal Nos 152/2014, 232/2013, 1190/2012 & 196/2013 Page 13 of 21 Rs 15,000/- per annum, the table prescribes the compensation payable even in cases where the annual income ranges between Rs 3000/- and Rs 12000/- This leads to an anomalous position in regard to applications under Section 163A of MV Act, as the compensation will be higher in cases where the deceased was idle and not having any income, than in cases where the deceased was honestly earning an income ranging between Rs 3000/- and Rs 12,000/- per annum Be that as it may 18 The principles relating to determination of liability and quantum of compensation are different for claims made under Section 163A of MV Act and claims under Section 166 of MV Act (See : Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v Meena Variyal | Supreme Court of India | India | circa 2007 |
|
|||
Air 2006 SC 2688 |
|
Supreme Court of India | India | circa 2006 |
|
||
Ramesh Chandra v MP State Road Transport Corporation |
|
circa 1983 |
|