Search Results for "Claims tribunal"

115 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 115 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Partially Allows Appeal in Motor Accident Claim — Mother of Deceased Entitled to Dependency Compensation, Married Daughter Only Entitled to No-Fault Liability Under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

The case arises from a motor accident claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. On 26 January 2008, the deceased, Paras Sharma, was riding a two-wheel...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for Bedridden Accident Victim in Motor Accident Claim Case — Monthly Income Reassessed at Rs.9,000 with Multiplier of 18

The appellant, a 25-year-old man, became completely bedridden due to a motor accident while traveling in his employer's truck. He filed a claim before...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Dismisses Insurance Company's Appeal in Motor Accident Claim Case. High Court's reversal of Tribunal's contributory negligence finding upheld based on unreliable evidence from truck driver and investigating officer, fixing entire liability on truck under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The dispute arose from a fatal motor accident involving a truck and a motorcycle, resulting in the death of the bike rider. The deceased's wife and mo...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for Deceased’s Family in Motor Accident Claim. Assessment of Just Compensation—Multiplier & Future Prospects Revisited—MACT & High Court Orders Modified

Monthly Income Adjusted: ₹7,000 was considered, including notional income and family pension. Multiplier Increased: Held at 14 instead of 9,...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Compensation enhanced for quadriplegic accident victim – Future prospects, attendant charges, special diet, pain & suffering considered.

Income Assessment: The Supreme Court held that ₹5,600 per month (assessed by the High Court) was too low. Instead, ₹7,500 per month was considered...