Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166 -- Accident - Compensation - Multiplier - Deceased was 31 years of age at the time of accident - Multiplier of 16 is correctly applied by High Court as per Pranay Sethi case...........
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166 -- Accident - Compensation - Future prospects - Deceased was self-employed in foreign country - When no material evidence is offered to determine future prospects in foreign country, Court is inclined to extend benefit of future prospects component for compensation payable as per principles in Pranay Sethi case...........
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166 -- Accident - Total compensation - Taking into account the age of deceased 31 years at the time of accident, multiplier of 16, 40% future prospects, conventional heads namely loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000, Rs.40,000 and Rs.15,000 respectively, loss of dependency and other heads under which..........
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166 -- Accident - Future prospects - Self employed person - Even if appellant is self-employed, claimants are entitled to future prospects...........
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166 -- Accident - Total compensation - Considering age of appellant as 38 years, monthly income of Rs.9,500, multiplier of 15, functional disability at 41.77%, 40% future prospects and various heads under which appellant is entitled to compensation, total compensation of Rs.16,60,891 with 6% interest p.a from date of claim petition till..........
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166, 149 -- Accident - Compensation - Liability of personal accident cover - Whether liability was limited or not - When the contention of limited liability was neither taken before Tribunal nor in appeal filed before High Court, there was no reason for High Court to look into policy document to find limited liability - Order of High Court..........
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166 -- Accident - Compensation - Delay in filing FIR - Mere fact that eye witness did not approach police cannot be a reason to find delay in FIR to be suspicious...........
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166 -- Accident - Compensation - Delay in filing FIR - Accident occurred at 6 pm and murg report was on the same day - Mere fact that eye witness did not approach police cannot be a reason to find delay in FIR to be suspicious - FIR cannot be disbelieved especially as insurance company did not make any attempt to examine I.O. before..........
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166 -- Accident - Compensation - Functional disability - Claimant was a skilled mason - Doctor who was examined before Tribunal had specifically deposed that appellant was unable to sit down and walk and could not lift heavy weights - He was also said to be in constant pain - Evidence of doctor would indicate that he could not have..........
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166 -- Accident - Compensation - 35% Functional disability - Medical expenses - Appellant suffered two fractures, one of which was a compound fracture, treatment of which required surgical intervention - Medical expenses hence be increased to Rs.20,000...........
