REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD Appellant

V/S

RAM BHAROSE Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

GENERAL MANAGER KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION TRIVANDRUM VS. SUSAMMA THOMAS MRS [REFERRED TO]
U P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. TRILOKCHANDRA [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL BOARD OF DAWOODI BOHRA COMMUNITY VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD VS. CHARLIE [REFERRED TO]
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD VS. SHANTI PATHAK [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH SINGH VS. SATBIR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
SARLA VERMA VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
RESHMA KUMARI VS. MADAN MOHAN [REFERRED TO]
MANAM SARASWATHI SAMPOORNA KALAVATHI VS. MANAGER APSRTC TADEPALLIGUDEM [REFERRED TO]
SHAKTI DEVI VS. NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD [REFERRED TO]
SAFIYA BEE VS. MOHD VAJAHATH HUSSAIN ALIAS FASI [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. S K KAPOOR [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD VS. SHYAM SINGH [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH DEVI VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD [REFERRED TO]
RESHMA KUMARI VS. MADAN MOHAN [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH VS. RAJBIR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY VERMA VS. HARYANA ROADWAYS [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. impugns judgment dated 06.09.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby compensation of Rs.8,35,438/ - was awarded for the death of Sunil, who died in a motor vehicular accident which occurred on 09.05.2008.

(2.) AT the time of hearing of the appeal, the following contentions were raised on behalf of the Appellant:

(3.) I have the Trial Court Record before me. It was stated in the Affidavit filed by Ram Bharose, father of deceased Sunil that the deceased was working as an employee in a factory manufacturing lipsticks. Ram Bharose further claimed that the deceased was getting a salary of Rs.6,000/ - per month. In the absence of any proof of his service, the Claims Tribunal took the minimum wages of a semi -skilled worker under the Minimum Wages Act and computed the loss of dependency, which to my mind, cannot be said to be unreasonable. However, addition of 50% towards future prospects is not permissible in view of the judgment of this Court in HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Lalta Devi and Ors., (MAC. APP. 189/2014) decided on 12.01.2015, where the question regarding future prospects was dealt with at great length. Paras 13 to 21 of the report in Lalta Devi are extracted hereunder: -

Click here to view full judgment.

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. RAM BHAROSE

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address