Search Results for "Attendant Expenses"

548 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 548 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Gujarat High Court Dismisses Appeal by State Transport Corporation in Motor Accident Claim — Upholds 100% Functional Disability for Amputation of Both Legs. Notional Income of Rs.3,000 per month for a 59-year-old retired claimant held justified under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The appellant, Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, challenged the judgment and award dated 12.07.2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribun...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Gujarat Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Claim for Permanent Disability Due to Truck-Bus Collision. Claimant's income assessed at Rs.5,000 per month with 40% future prospects, and compensation increased from Rs.2,13,000 to Rs.7,47,000 with 7.5% interest.

The appellant, Rameshbhai Nanabhai Vagadiya, filed a first appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the judgment and awar...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Insurance Company's Appeal in Motor Accident Claim — Upholds Compensation for Injured Claimant. Negligence of Auto Rickshaw Driver Established, No Contributory Negligence by Motorcyclist Found.

The appeal was filed by the National Insurance Co. Ltd. challenging the judgment and award dated 20.06.2015 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Addit...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Gujarat High Court Reduces Compensation in Motor Accident Case Due to Contributory Negligence of Deceased Driver. Truck driver died after colliding with a parked trailer; court apportioned 40% contributory negligence on deceased for not noticing stationary vehicle.

The case arises from a motor accident on 11.11.2009 when deceased Punabhai alias Rameshbhai Manglabhai Malivad was driving truck GJ-7Z-9264 from Vadod...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Karnataka High Court Allows Partition Appeal in Co-owner Dispute — Rejects Adverse Possession Claim. Court holds that a co-owner cannot claim adverse possession against another co-owner without ouster, and a suit for partition is not barred by limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

The case involves a family dispute over property originally owned by M.A. Mohammed Ayoob. The appellant, Mohammed Hussain, filed a suit for partition ...