Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Setting aside the decision of the Railway Claims Tribunal and awarding compensation to legal representatives of the deceased the Court stated that a rash and negligent act cannot be equated with a criminal act resulting in self-inflicted injury and held that the injury sustained by the deceased was an ‘untoward incident’ as under Section 123(c)(2) of the 1989 Act.
The Court discussed the difference between a gratuitous passenger travelling in a private vehicle that met with an accident, and the deceased wife of the insured in the instant case who was held to be covered as a “third party”. The distinction proved to be elemental in granting “just compensation” to the appellants.
“The liability of the Insurance Company will be restricted to that arising under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 and the owner will be liable to satisfy the remaining part of the award.”
‘Passenger’ would include a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling by a train carrying passengers on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident.
The Delhi High Court upheld the Trial Court’s decision of awarding life imprisonment to a man convicted for murdering his wife and assaulting his daughter.
The Manipur High Court held that the appropriate multiplier for deceased, aged 35 years should be 16 in place of 17 for calculation of compensation in cases under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The relief claimed in the present suit by Late Shri S.K. Beri was specifically against Deepak Beri and his family members. Deepak Beri has contested the suit by filing a written statement controverting the averments made to the plaint and seeking dismissal of the present suit.
Delhi High Court: In a case, wherein an appeal was filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (Act)
Bombay High Court: In a petition filed by petitioner-wife praying for quashing and setting aside the impugned communication dated 18-03-2019
Orissa High Court: In a case where a father (‘petitioner') is seeking compensation on the death of his seven-year-old daughter,
Chhattisgarh High Court: A Division Bench of Goutam Bhaduri and Deepak Kumar Tiwari JJ. entitled father-in-law to pay maintenance to widowed daughter-in-law
Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of Suresh Kumar Kait and Saurabh Banerjee, JJ. granted compassionate allowance to widow of Late Naik
Telangana High Court: M Laxman, J. allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for adjudication on merits and held that
Rajasthan High Court: Birendra Kumar J. allowed the appeal and enhanced the award considering the settled guidelines in the subsequent judgments to
Allahabad High Court: Dr Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J., decided an issue with regard to the habeas corpus petition for custody of a
Delhi High Court: While upholding the decision of Trial Court, Division Bench of Vipin Sanghi and Jasmeet Singh, JJ., reiterated that dying
Rajasthan High Court: Dinesh Mehta, J., dismissed a petition which was filed aggrieved by the denial of compassionate appointment by communication dated
Calcutta High Court: Bibek Chaudhuri, J., expressed that, voluntary presents given at or before or after the marriage to the bride or
Bombay High Court: V.M. Deshpande, J., held that merely drinking can never be an abetment for a person to commit suicide. The
Bombay High Court: S.M. Modak, J., dealt with some significant issues in a claim petition wherein a widow is earning and has