M/S. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice H.P. Sandesh

Section 166 this Court always followed multiplier method. As there were inconsistencies in the selection of a multiplier, this Court in Sarla Verma prepared a table for the selection of a multiplier based on the age group of the deceased/victim. The 1988 Act, does not envisage application of a split multiplier. 33. In K.R.Madhusudhan v. Administrative Officer, this Court held

SMT LAKSHMAMMA vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice H.P. Sandesh

Section 166 this Court always followed multiplier method. As there were inconsistencies in the selection of a multiplier, this Court in Sarla Verma prepared a table for the selection of a multiplier based on the age group of the deceased/victim. The 1988 Act, does not envisage application of a split multiplier. 33. In K.R.Madhusudhan v. Administrative Officer, this Court held

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI I MAHABALESHWARAPPA

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

166/- under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act to the assessed income. The legal heirs thereupon filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 5 (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal' for short). The tribunal by an order dated 12.07.2013 inter alia held that since, the order of assessment was passed by the Assessing Officer after the death

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI H E PANDURANGA

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

reassessment made protectively under Section 147 for the assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98 by holding them as infructuous without going into the merits of the case when the issues with reference to unexplained cash credits of Rs.50 Lakhs and Rs.65,10,000/- have been found to be unexplained? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was correct in 3 applying

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. SHRI. CHERIAN ABRAHAM

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

reassessment proceedings, held that mere omission to mention Section 143 (2) of the Act equally in any one of the notices so issued is held to be not fatal and would not invalidate the assessment order. In that context, it has been held that the Court is not prepared to think that there was absence of notice under Section

LATHA vs. HDFC ERGO GEN. INSURANCE CO LTD

In the result, we pass the following:

Bench: B.VEERAPPA,K.S. HEMALEKHA

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the Act” for short), seeking compensation of Rs.60,00,000/- on 4 account of death of one Muniraju in a fatal road traffic accident that occurred on 22/03/2017, while the deceased was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-51/EF-6040 and when he reached near Delphi Factory at Jigani, a lorry

MALLANGOUDA S/O LATE JAGADEVAPPA PATIL vs. DILEEP KUMAR S/O RAJARAM BHOSALE AND ANR

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ashok S. Kinagi M. F. A. No.200461 Of 2021 (Mv) Between: Mallangouda, S/O Late Jagadevappa Patil, Aged About 43 Years, Occ: Legal Practitioner, R/O. Banashankari Nagar, Old Jewargi Road, Kalaburagi. … Appellant (By Smt.Geetha Sajjanshetty, Advocate) And: 1. Dileep Kumar, S/O Rajaram Bhosale, Aged About 60 Years, Occ: Driver, R/O. Plot No.52, Cib Colony, Behind Central Bus Stand, Kalaburagi - 585 103. (Owner-Cum-Driver). 2. The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co., Dr. Jawali Complex

Section 166 of the M.V.Act, seeking for enhancement of compensation on the account of injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. 4. The respondent No.1 appeared through his counsel and filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and also contended that as on the date of accident the policy and the driving license are valid. Respondent

LAKSHMI BAI W/O SRINIVAS RAO ALAVANDIKAR vs. G ADINARAYAN S/O G. KONDANNA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Ravi V. Hosmani

166 of Motor Vehicle Act, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) 1988. 4. Despite service of notice, driver and owner of lorry did not appear, they were placed ex-parte. Respondent No.3- insurer filed objections alleging that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of Maruti Omni Van by its driver. Insurer also denied age, occupation and income

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR vs. G J LATHA

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

166 of the Act seeking compensation for the loss of income sustained on account of the injuries and for the loss of dependency sustained on account of death of the deceased due to the accident which occurred solely due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle respectively. The Respondent NWKSRTC filed the written statement, in which inter

THE CLAIM MANAGER vs. SMT. LATHA B J

The appeals are allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

166 of Motor Vehicles Act (‘M.V. Act for short) claiming compensation of Rs.75,50,000/-. 3. Upon service of summons, respondent No.1 owner filed objection denying the claim petition averments. The age, occupation, income of deceased and dependency of claimants on deceased was also denied. It was also alleged that accident occurred on account of own negligence of deceased

SRI DINABANDHU SAHU vs. M/S BAGAIRATHI TRAVEL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 166 of the M.V. Act, against owner and insurer of the bus claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,00,000/-. 5 4. On service of summons, respondent No.1 - owner denied claim petition averments and stated that vehicle was insured with respondent No.1 and that driver of the bus had valid and effective driving licence. Respondent No.2- insurer opposed the claim

A NAGARAJ vs. A AMBAREESH

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) against owner and insurer of tipper lorry. 4. In response to summons, respondents no.1 - and 2, owner and insurer respectively entered appearance and filed separate written statements. 5. Respondent No.1 denied occurrence of accident on account of negligence of driver of Tipper Lorry, but stated that it was insured

THE FUTURE GENERAL INDIA vs. SRI DINABANDHU SAHU

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 166 of the M.V. Act, against owner and insurer of the bus claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,00,000/-. 5 4. On service of summons, respondent No.1 - owner denied claim petition averments and stated that vehicle was insured with respondent No.1 and that driver of the bus had valid and effective driving licence. Respondent No.2- insurer opposed the claim

HANUMANTHASA S/O KUSUSA @ KUSHALA MAHARWADE vs. SADDAM HUSSAIN S/O MAIBOOBSAB

Bench: M.G.S. KAMAL,B.VEERAPPA

Section 166 of the Motor : 4 : Vehicles Act seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.42,70,300/- for the injuries sustained by him in the said road traffic accident. 3. After issuance of notice, respondent No.1 remained unrepresented and he was placed exparte, respondent No.3 was deleted and respondents 2 and 4 appeared before the Court through their respective counsels

ANJANADEVI vs. DUDANI EXPORTERS PVT.TD.,

In the result, appeal is allowed in part with costs

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Ravi V.Hosmani

Section 166 of M.V. Act, against the owner and insurer of offending vehicle. 5. On service of notice, respondent No.1-owner did not contest the claim and was placed exparte. Respondent No.2-insurer entered appearance and filed objections denying the claim petition averments. The age, occupation and income of deceased was also denied. The negligence on the part of driver

SAKUBAI AND ORS vs. SUNIL AND ANR

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Ashok S. Kinagi Mfa No.200033/2018 (Mv) Between: 1. Sakubai W/O Late Ramesh @ Arjun Rathod Aged: 37 Years, Occ: Household Now Nil 2. Naresh S/O Late Ramesh@ Arjun Rathod Aged: 18 Years, Occ: Student 3. Komal D/O Late Ramesh @ Arjun Rathod Aged: 16 Years, Occ: Student 4. Rohit S/O Late Ramesh@ Arjun Rathod Aged: 14 Years, Occ: Student 5. Heerabai W/O Late Kishan Rathod, Aged: 71 Years, Occ: Household Appellant Nos. 3 & 4 Are Under Guardianship Of Their Natural Mother I.E, Appellant No.1 All R/O Shampur Halli Tanda Tq. Chittapur, Dist: Kalaburagi Now At H.No.1/10 Near Aland Naka Kalaburagi ... Appellants (By Sri Sanjeev Patil, Advocate)

section 166 of the Act claiming compensation on the death of deceased Ramesh @ Arjun in road traffic accident. 4. The respondent No.1 has not filed written statement. The respondent No.2 has filed written statement denying the averments made in the petition and also denied age, avocation, income of the deceased and also denied place of accident and manner of accident

THE MANAGER vs. SARASWATHAMMA

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice H.T.Narendra Prasad Mfa No.2880 Of 2014(Mv) C/W Mfa No.2881 Of 2014(Mv)

Section 166 of the Act on the ground that the deceased was aged about 53 years at the time of accident, was 6 working as a conductor and was earning Rs.11,955/- per month. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.9,55,000/- along with interest. 4. On service of summons, the respondent appeared through counsel and filed

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR vs. VIJAYA @ VIJAYAMMA

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice H.T.Narendra Prasad Mfa No.2880 Of 2014(Mv) C/W Mfa No.2881 Of 2014(Mv)

Section 166 of the Act on the ground that the deceased was aged about 53 years at the time of accident, was 6 working as a conductor and was earning Rs.11,955/- per month. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.9,55,000/- along with interest. 4. On service of summons, the respondent appeared through counsel and filed