United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Krishna Devi and ors. Semantic Analysis

Semantic Analysis by spaCy

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Krishna Devi and ors.

Decided On : Dec-30-2010

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]Code Context

$shops2 = $shops['topics'];
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Krishna Devi and ors. Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 168'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '1',
			(int) 1 => '18',
			(int) 2 => '11',
			(int) 3 => '11',
			(int) 4 => '10'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Krishna Devi-respondent',
			(int) 1 => 'Raj Kumar',
			(int) 2 => 'Autorikshaw',
			(int) 3 => 'DLIP-1521',
			(int) 4 => 'DLIP-1521',
			(int) 5 => 'Award',
			(int) 6 => 'Sarla Verma',
			(int) 7 => 'Award',
			(int) 8 => 'Award',
			(int) 9 => 'Autorikshaw',
			(int) 10 => 'Sarla Verma s case',
			(int) 11 => 'Sarla Verma s case',
			(int) 12 => 'Award',
			(int) 13 => 'Award',
			(int) 14 => 'Award'
		),
		'FAC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Cinema Hall'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Katra',
			(int) 1 => 'Rs.4000/-',
			(int) 2 => 'Rs.4000/-'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'February 27, 1999',
			(int) 1 => 'August 31, 2007',
			(int) 2 => '2009',
			(int) 3 => '1298',
			(int) 4 => 'monthly',
			(int) 5 => 'between 25 to 30 years',
			(int) 6 => 'years',
			(int) 7 => 'more than 11 years ago',
			(int) 8 => '26 years of age',
			(int) 9 => 'the years',
			(int) 10 => 'less than 55 years',
			(int) 11 => 'monthly',
			(int) 12 => 'Rs.10,000/-',
			(int) 13 => 'Rs.10,000/-'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal',
			(int) 1 => 'Reasi',
			(int) 2 => 'the United India Insurance Company Limited',
			(int) 3 => 'the Insurance Company',
			(int) 4 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 5 => 'Delhi Transport Corporation',
			(int) 6 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 7 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 8 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 9 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 10 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 11 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 12 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 13 => 'Court',
			(int) 14 => 'Rs.1500/-',
			(int) 15 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 16 => 'Award.11',
			(int) 17 => 'Court',
			(int) 18 => 'the Claims Petition',
			(int) 19 => 'Tribunal'
		),
		'PRODUCT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Award'
		),
		'PERCENT' => array(
			(int) 0 => '50%',
			(int) 1 => '6%'
		),
		'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'The Award of the Tribunal'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Rs.3,55,000/-'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '911692',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Section 168;',
			'appealno' => 'CIMA No. 171 OF 2007.',
			'appellant' => 'United India Insurance Company Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Krishna Devi and ors.',
			'casenote' => '[MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA; ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] - Rajasthan Sales Tax Act; Central Sales Tax Act - The respondent deposited sales tax at the rate of 10% assuming that Jaljira is not a Masala and hence taxable at the general rate of 10% as residuary entry 199, which reads as under: "199. The counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the respondent is liable to pay sales tax at the rate of 16% on the product manufactured by it and the assessing officer was justified in treating the respondent liable to pay sales tax at the rate of 16%. The officer, however, referred to the contents of the notification dated 29.03.2001 holding that jaljira is a masala and the same falls in the category of packed masala and therefore liable to be taxed at the rate of 16% as mentioned under Entry No. 184 of rate notification.

The assessing officer has specifically stated that jaljira is multi-ingredient packed masala and therefore respondent is liable to pay sales tax on the manufactured Jaljira at the rate of 16%. 13. Appellant filed two appeals before the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer challenging the aforesaid order of Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Ajmer. The order dated 15.03.2004 passed by the Tax Assessment Officer is restored. Other products of the assessee such as Aachar Masala, Jaljeera powder, Anar Masala, Methi Chatani, Pudina, Lehsoon Chatni, Chat Masala, Kitchen Masala, Mangodi Masala, Sambhar Masala, Dal Masala, Kasuri Methi, Heena Powder, Shikkai Powder, Lahsoon powder, must be held to be Masala packed falling under Entry No. 184 of the notification dated 29.03.2001.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => 'Mr. Vishnu Gupta, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Mr. Y.P.Kaushal, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2010-12-30',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Mr. Justice J.P.Singh, J',
			'judgement' => '1. Krishna Devi-respondent s Claim for compensation for the death of her son Raj Kumar, who, received head injury, besides other multiple injuries while sitting in his Autorikshaw near Cinema Hall, Katra, when hit by a rashly and negligently driven Bus No. DLIP-1521 on February 27, 1999, was allowed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Reasi vide its Award of August 31, 2007, directing the United India Insurance Company Limited to pay her Rs.3,81,400/- along with interest, as compensation, finding that her son had died because of the injuries received in the accident, which had occurred as a result of the rash and negligent driving of Bus bearing registration No. DLIP-1521. Aggrieved by the Award, the Insurance Company has appealed to this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Appellants learned counsel submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal as payable to the respondent was excessive having been determined adopting untenable method for assessment of compensation. The finding of the Tribunal on the income of the deceased at the time of his death too has been assailed as unwarranted. Relying on Sarla Verma and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported as 2009 ACJ, 1298, learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the Award impugned in the Appeal, holds the claimant entitled to such amount of compensation which, by no stretch of reasoning can be termed as unjust, and even if the multiplier method, as suggested by the appellant s counsel, were to be adopted to assess the compensation, the same amount of compensation, as assessed by the Tribunal, would become payable to the claimant thus warranting no interference with the Award in Appeal. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The appellant-Insurance Company did not produce any evidence to rebut the evidence of the claimant, and the Tribunal had, therefore, to consider the claimant s evidence alone to determine the compensation payable to the claimant for the death of her son in the motor vehicular accident. The Tribunal, assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4000/-, finding the claimant s plea that her son would earn Rs.6000/- per month, exaggerated, by adopting the Unitary system. The dependency of the mother on the income of the deceased was assessed at Rs.2700/- per month. Taking the age of the deceased into consideration, the multiplier of 18 prescribed for the age group of persons between 25 to 30 years, has been scaled down by the Tribunal to 11 to assess the compensation payable to the claimant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The finding of the Tribunal in assessing the dependency of the claimant on the income of the deceased is found untenable because the age of the mother and the number of years she was likely to survive, in the ordinary course, needing compensation for her sustenance, have not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal while assessing compensation. Although the Tribunal has erred in assessing the compensation payable to the claimant yet keeping in view the fact that the accident had taken place more than 11 years ago, it would be appropriate for this Court to determine the compensation payable to the claimant, itself, in terms of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act rather than directing the remand of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The deceased was 26 years of age at the time of his death and was a driver by profession. He owned his own Autorikshaw from where he would earn for his own sustenance and for the sustenance of his mother.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In view of the law laid down in Sarla Verma s case, Rs.1500/- needs to be added towards the future prospects of the deceased in earning more in the years to come, in the income of the deceased. The finding of the Tribunal holding the income of the deceased at the time of his death at Rs.4000/-, is supported by the evidence on records and in the absence of any evidence in rebuttal, no interference therewith may be warranted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Thus calculating the dependency of the claimant, on the income of the deceased, including therein the future income of the deceased, the dependency of the claimant would come to Rs.2750/- deducting 50% out of the so ascertained income of the deceased that he would have spent on his own, had he survived. According to the guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma s case, 11 is indicated as the appropriate multiplier for the age group of the claimant at the time of the accident. Which, according to her evidence, was less than 55 years. Thus, in the circumstances, finding 10 as the suitable multiplier and taking Rs.2750/- as the monthly dependency of the claimant-mother on the income of her deceased son, the compensation payable to the claimant for the death of her son on whom she was wholly dependent comes to Rs.3,30,000/-. Adding Rs.10,000/- for loss of love and affection, Rs.10,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.5000/- for funeral expenses, the total compensation payable to the claimant would come to Rs.3,55,000/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Award of the Tribunal, in view of the above findings, therefore, needs to be modified.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Accordingly, setting aside the findings of the Tribunal on the question of assessment of compensation, its Award is modified as Award for an amount of Rs.3,55,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the Claim Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. This Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of with the above modification in the Award.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The amount which is in deposit in this Court in the Appeal shall be released in favour of the respondent-claimant in terms of the modified Award minus the amount already received by her during the pendency of the Appeal and the Claims Petition before the Tribunal.',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Krishna Devi and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '911692'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Krishna Devi and ors. Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 168'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1',
		(int) 1 => '18',
		(int) 2 => '11',
		(int) 3 => '11',
		(int) 4 => '10'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Krishna Devi-respondent',
		(int) 1 => 'Raj Kumar',
		(int) 2 => 'Autorikshaw',
		(int) 3 => 'DLIP-1521',
		(int) 4 => 'DLIP-1521',
		(int) 5 => 'Award',
		(int) 6 => 'Sarla Verma',
		(int) 7 => 'Award',
		(int) 8 => 'Award',
		(int) 9 => 'Autorikshaw',
		(int) 10 => 'Sarla Verma s case',
		(int) 11 => 'Sarla Verma s case',
		(int) 12 => 'Award',
		(int) 13 => 'Award',
		(int) 14 => 'Award'
	),
	'FAC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Cinema Hall'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Katra',
		(int) 1 => 'Rs.4000/-',
		(int) 2 => 'Rs.4000/-'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'February 27, 1999',
		(int) 1 => 'August 31, 2007',
		(int) 2 => '2009',
		(int) 3 => '1298',
		(int) 4 => 'monthly',
		(int) 5 => 'between 25 to 30 years',
		(int) 6 => 'years',
		(int) 7 => 'more than 11 years ago',
		(int) 8 => '26 years of age',
		(int) 9 => 'the years',
		(int) 10 => 'less than 55 years',
		(int) 11 => 'monthly',
		(int) 12 => 'Rs.10,000/-',
		(int) 13 => 'Rs.10,000/-'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal',
		(int) 1 => 'Reasi',
		(int) 2 => 'the United India Insurance Company Limited',
		(int) 3 => 'the Insurance Company',
		(int) 4 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 5 => 'Delhi Transport Corporation',
		(int) 6 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 7 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 8 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 9 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 10 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 11 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 12 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 13 => 'Court',
		(int) 14 => 'Rs.1500/-',
		(int) 15 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 16 => 'Award.11',
		(int) 17 => 'Court',
		(int) 18 => 'the Claims Petition',
		(int) 19 => 'Tribunal'
	),
	'PRODUCT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Award'
	),
	'PERCENT' => array(
		(int) 0 => '50%',
		(int) 1 => '6%'
	),
	'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'The Award of the Tribunal'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Rs.3,55,000/-'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '911692',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Section 168;',
		'appealno' => 'CIMA No. 171 OF 2007.',
		'appellant' => 'United India Insurance Company Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Krishna Devi and ors.',
		'casenote' => '[MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA; ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] - Rajasthan Sales Tax Act; Central Sales Tax Act - The respondent deposited sales tax at the rate of 10% assuming that Jaljira is not a Masala and hence taxable at the general rate of 10% as residuary entry 199, which reads as under: "199. The counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the respondent is liable to pay sales tax at the rate of 16% on the product manufactured by it and the assessing officer was justified in treating the respondent liable to pay sales tax at the rate of 16%. The officer, however, referred to the contents of the notification dated 29.03.2001 holding that jaljira is a masala and the same falls in the category of packed masala and therefore liable to be taxed at the rate of 16% as mentioned under Entry No. 184 of rate notification.

The assessing officer has specifically stated that jaljira is multi-ingredient packed masala and therefore respondent is liable to pay sales tax on the manufactured Jaljira at the rate of 16%. 13. Appellant filed two appeals before the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer challenging the aforesaid order of Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Ajmer. The order dated 15.03.2004 passed by the Tax Assessment Officer is restored. Other products of the assessee such as Aachar Masala, Jaljeera powder, Anar Masala, Methi Chatani, Pudina, Lehsoon Chatni, Chat Masala, Kitchen Masala, Mangodi Masala, Sambhar Masala, Dal Masala, Kasuri Methi, Heena Powder, Shikkai Powder, Lahsoon powder, must be held to be Masala packed falling under Entry No. 184 of the notification dated 29.03.2001.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => 'Mr. Vishnu Gupta, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Mr. Y.P.Kaushal, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2010-12-30',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Mr. Justice J.P.Singh, J',
		'judgement' => '1. Krishna Devi-respondent s Claim for compensation for the death of her son Raj Kumar, who, received head injury, besides other multiple injuries while sitting in his Autorikshaw near Cinema Hall, Katra, when hit by a rashly and negligently driven Bus No. DLIP-1521 on February 27, 1999, was allowed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Reasi vide its Award of August 31, 2007, directing the United India Insurance Company Limited to pay her Rs.3,81,400/- along with interest, as compensation, finding that her son had died because of the injuries received in the accident, which had occurred as a result of the rash and negligent driving of Bus bearing registration No. DLIP-1521. Aggrieved by the Award, the Insurance Company has appealed to this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Appellants learned counsel submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal as payable to the respondent was excessive having been determined adopting untenable method for assessment of compensation. The finding of the Tribunal on the income of the deceased at the time of his death too has been assailed as unwarranted. Relying on Sarla Verma and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported as 2009 ACJ, 1298, learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the Award impugned in the Appeal, holds the claimant entitled to such amount of compensation which, by no stretch of reasoning can be termed as unjust, and even if the multiplier method, as suggested by the appellant s counsel, were to be adopted to assess the compensation, the same amount of compensation, as assessed by the Tribunal, would become payable to the claimant thus warranting no interference with the Award in Appeal. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The appellant-Insurance Company did not produce any evidence to rebut the evidence of the claimant, and the Tribunal had, therefore, to consider the claimant s evidence alone to determine the compensation payable to the claimant for the death of her son in the motor vehicular accident. The Tribunal, assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4000/-, finding the claimant s plea that her son would earn Rs.6000/- per month, exaggerated, by adopting the Unitary system. The dependency of the mother on the income of the deceased was assessed at Rs.2700/- per month. Taking the age of the deceased into consideration, the multiplier of 18 prescribed for the age group of persons between 25 to 30 years, has been scaled down by the Tribunal to 11 to assess the compensation payable to the claimant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The finding of the Tribunal in assessing the dependency of the claimant on the income of the deceased is found untenable because the age of the mother and the number of years she was likely to survive, in the ordinary course, needing compensation for her sustenance, have not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal while assessing compensation. Although the Tribunal has erred in assessing the compensation payable to the claimant yet keeping in view the fact that the accident had taken place more than 11 years ago, it would be appropriate for this Court to determine the compensation payable to the claimant, itself, in terms of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act rather than directing the remand of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The deceased was 26 years of age at the time of his death and was a driver by profession. He owned his own Autorikshaw from where he would earn for his own sustenance and for the sustenance of his mother.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In view of the law laid down in Sarla Verma s case, Rs.1500/- needs to be added towards the future prospects of the deceased in earning more in the years to come, in the income of the deceased. The finding of the Tribunal holding the income of the deceased at the time of his death at Rs.4000/-, is supported by the evidence on records and in the absence of any evidence in rebuttal, no interference therewith may be warranted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Thus calculating the dependency of the claimant, on the income of the deceased, including therein the future income of the deceased, the dependency of the claimant would come to Rs.2750/- deducting 50% out of the so ascertained income of the deceased that he would have spent on his own, had he survived. According to the guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma s case, 11 is indicated as the appropriate multiplier for the age group of the claimant at the time of the accident. Which, according to her evidence, was less than 55 years. Thus, in the circumstances, finding 10 as the suitable multiplier and taking Rs.2750/- as the monthly dependency of the claimant-mother on the income of her deceased son, the compensation payable to the claimant for the death of her son on whom she was wholly dependent comes to Rs.3,30,000/-. Adding Rs.10,000/- for loss of love and affection, Rs.10,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.5000/- for funeral expenses, the total compensation payable to the claimant would come to Rs.3,55,000/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Award of the Tribunal, in view of the above findings, therefore, needs to be modified.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Accordingly, setting aside the findings of the Tribunal on the question of assessment of compensation, its Award is modified as Award for an amount of Rs.3,55,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the Claim Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. This Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of with the above modification in the Award.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The amount which is in deposit in this Court in the Appeal shall be released in favour of the respondent-claimant in terms of the modified Award minus the amount already received by her during the pendency of the Appeal and the Claims Petition before the Tribunal.',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Krishna Devi and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '911692'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]Code Context//$shops = $shops['entities'];

foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Krishna Devi and ors. Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 168'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '1',
			(int) 1 => '18',
			(int) 2 => '11',
			(int) 3 => '11',
			(int) 4 => '10'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Krishna Devi-respondent',
			(int) 1 => 'Raj Kumar',
			(int) 2 => 'Autorikshaw',
			(int) 3 => 'DLIP-1521',
			(int) 4 => 'DLIP-1521',
			(int) 5 => 'Award',
			(int) 6 => 'Sarla Verma',
			(int) 7 => 'Award',
			(int) 8 => 'Award',
			(int) 9 => 'Autorikshaw',
			(int) 10 => 'Sarla Verma s case',
			(int) 11 => 'Sarla Verma s case',
			(int) 12 => 'Award',
			(int) 13 => 'Award',
			(int) 14 => 'Award'
		),
		'FAC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Cinema Hall'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Katra',
			(int) 1 => 'Rs.4000/-',
			(int) 2 => 'Rs.4000/-'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'February 27, 1999',
			(int) 1 => 'August 31, 2007',
			(int) 2 => '2009',
			(int) 3 => '1298',
			(int) 4 => 'monthly',
			(int) 5 => 'between 25 to 30 years',
			(int) 6 => 'years',
			(int) 7 => 'more than 11 years ago',
			(int) 8 => '26 years of age',
			(int) 9 => 'the years',
			(int) 10 => 'less than 55 years',
			(int) 11 => 'monthly',
			(int) 12 => 'Rs.10,000/-',
			(int) 13 => 'Rs.10,000/-'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal',
			(int) 1 => 'Reasi',
			(int) 2 => 'the United India Insurance Company Limited',
			(int) 3 => 'the Insurance Company',
			(int) 4 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 5 => 'Delhi Transport Corporation',
			(int) 6 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 7 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 8 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 9 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 10 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 11 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 12 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 13 => 'Court',
			(int) 14 => 'Rs.1500/-',
			(int) 15 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 16 => 'Award.11',
			(int) 17 => 'Court',
			(int) 18 => 'the Claims Petition',
			(int) 19 => 'Tribunal'
		),
		'PRODUCT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Award'
		),
		'PERCENT' => array(
			(int) 0 => '50%',
			(int) 1 => '6%'
		),
		'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'The Award of the Tribunal'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Rs.3,55,000/-'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '911692',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Section 168;',
			'appealno' => 'CIMA No. 171 OF 2007.',
			'appellant' => 'United India Insurance Company Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Krishna Devi and ors.',
			'casenote' => '[MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA; ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] - Rajasthan Sales Tax Act; Central Sales Tax Act - The respondent deposited sales tax at the rate of 10% assuming that Jaljira is not a Masala and hence taxable at the general rate of 10% as residuary entry 199, which reads as under: "199. The counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the respondent is liable to pay sales tax at the rate of 16% on the product manufactured by it and the assessing officer was justified in treating the respondent liable to pay sales tax at the rate of 16%. The officer, however, referred to the contents of the notification dated 29.03.2001 holding that jaljira is a masala and the same falls in the category of packed masala and therefore liable to be taxed at the rate of 16% as mentioned under Entry No. 184 of rate notification.

The assessing officer has specifically stated that jaljira is multi-ingredient packed masala and therefore respondent is liable to pay sales tax on the manufactured Jaljira at the rate of 16%. 13. Appellant filed two appeals before the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer challenging the aforesaid order of Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Ajmer. The order dated 15.03.2004 passed by the Tax Assessment Officer is restored. Other products of the assessee such as Aachar Masala, Jaljeera powder, Anar Masala, Methi Chatani, Pudina, Lehsoon Chatni, Chat Masala, Kitchen Masala, Mangodi Masala, Sambhar Masala, Dal Masala, Kasuri Methi, Heena Powder, Shikkai Powder, Lahsoon powder, must be held to be Masala packed falling under Entry No. 184 of the notification dated 29.03.2001.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => 'Mr. Vishnu Gupta, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Mr. Y.P.Kaushal, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2010-12-30',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Mr. Justice J.P.Singh, J',
			'judgement' => '1. Krishna Devi-respondent s Claim for compensation for the death of her son Raj Kumar, who, received head injury, besides other multiple injuries while sitting in his Autorikshaw near Cinema Hall, Katra, when hit by a rashly and negligently driven Bus No. DLIP-1521 on February 27, 1999, was allowed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Reasi vide its Award of August 31, 2007, directing the United India Insurance Company Limited to pay her Rs.3,81,400/- along with interest, as compensation, finding that her son had died because of the injuries received in the accident, which had occurred as a result of the rash and negligent driving of Bus bearing registration No. DLIP-1521. Aggrieved by the Award, the Insurance Company has appealed to this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Appellants learned counsel submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal as payable to the respondent was excessive having been determined adopting untenable method for assessment of compensation. The finding of the Tribunal on the income of the deceased at the time of his death too has been assailed as unwarranted. Relying on Sarla Verma and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported as 2009 ACJ, 1298, learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the Award impugned in the Appeal, holds the claimant entitled to such amount of compensation which, by no stretch of reasoning can be termed as unjust, and even if the multiplier method, as suggested by the appellant s counsel, were to be adopted to assess the compensation, the same amount of compensation, as assessed by the Tribunal, would become payable to the claimant thus warranting no interference with the Award in Appeal. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The appellant-Insurance Company did not produce any evidence to rebut the evidence of the claimant, and the Tribunal had, therefore, to consider the claimant s evidence alone to determine the compensation payable to the claimant for the death of her son in the motor vehicular accident. The Tribunal, assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4000/-, finding the claimant s plea that her son would earn Rs.6000/- per month, exaggerated, by adopting the Unitary system. The dependency of the mother on the income of the deceased was assessed at Rs.2700/- per month. Taking the age of the deceased into consideration, the multiplier of 18 prescribed for the age group of persons between 25 to 30 years, has been scaled down by the Tribunal to 11 to assess the compensation payable to the claimant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The finding of the Tribunal in assessing the dependency of the claimant on the income of the deceased is found untenable because the age of the mother and the number of years she was likely to survive, in the ordinary course, needing compensation for her sustenance, have not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal while assessing compensation. Although the Tribunal has erred in assessing the compensation payable to the claimant yet keeping in view the fact that the accident had taken place more than 11 years ago, it would be appropriate for this Court to determine the compensation payable to the claimant, itself, in terms of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act rather than directing the remand of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The deceased was 26 years of age at the time of his death and was a driver by profession. He owned his own Autorikshaw from where he would earn for his own sustenance and for the sustenance of his mother.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In view of the law laid down in Sarla Verma s case, Rs.1500/- needs to be added towards the future prospects of the deceased in earning more in the years to come, in the income of the deceased. The finding of the Tribunal holding the income of the deceased at the time of his death at Rs.4000/-, is supported by the evidence on records and in the absence of any evidence in rebuttal, no interference therewith may be warranted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Thus calculating the dependency of the claimant, on the income of the deceased, including therein the future income of the deceased, the dependency of the claimant would come to Rs.2750/- deducting 50% out of the so ascertained income of the deceased that he would have spent on his own, had he survived. According to the guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma s case, 11 is indicated as the appropriate multiplier for the age group of the claimant at the time of the accident. Which, according to her evidence, was less than 55 years. Thus, in the circumstances, finding 10 as the suitable multiplier and taking Rs.2750/- as the monthly dependency of the claimant-mother on the income of her deceased son, the compensation payable to the claimant for the death of her son on whom she was wholly dependent comes to Rs.3,30,000/-. Adding Rs.10,000/- for loss of love and affection, Rs.10,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.5000/- for funeral expenses, the total compensation payable to the claimant would come to Rs.3,55,000/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Award of the Tribunal, in view of the above findings, therefore, needs to be modified.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Accordingly, setting aside the findings of the Tribunal on the question of assessment of compensation, its Award is modified as Award for an amount of Rs.3,55,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the Claim Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. This Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of with the above modification in the Award.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The amount which is in deposit in this Court in the Appeal shall be released in favour of the respondent-claimant in terms of the modified Award minus the amount already received by her during the pendency of the Appeal and the Claims Petition before the Tribunal.',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'Krishna Devi and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '911692'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Krishna Devi and ors. Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 168'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1',
		(int) 1 => '18',
		(int) 2 => '11',
		(int) 3 => '11',
		(int) 4 => '10'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Krishna Devi-respondent',
		(int) 1 => 'Raj Kumar',
		(int) 2 => 'Autorikshaw',
		(int) 3 => 'DLIP-1521',
		(int) 4 => 'DLIP-1521',
		(int) 5 => 'Award',
		(int) 6 => 'Sarla Verma',
		(int) 7 => 'Award',
		(int) 8 => 'Award',
		(int) 9 => 'Autorikshaw',
		(int) 10 => 'Sarla Verma s case',
		(int) 11 => 'Sarla Verma s case',
		(int) 12 => 'Award',
		(int) 13 => 'Award',
		(int) 14 => 'Award'
	),
	'FAC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Cinema Hall'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Katra',
		(int) 1 => 'Rs.4000/-',
		(int) 2 => 'Rs.4000/-'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'February 27, 1999',
		(int) 1 => 'August 31, 2007',
		(int) 2 => '2009',
		(int) 3 => '1298',
		(int) 4 => 'monthly',
		(int) 5 => 'between 25 to 30 years',
		(int) 6 => 'years',
		(int) 7 => 'more than 11 years ago',
		(int) 8 => '26 years of age',
		(int) 9 => 'the years',
		(int) 10 => 'less than 55 years',
		(int) 11 => 'monthly',
		(int) 12 => 'Rs.10,000/-',
		(int) 13 => 'Rs.10,000/-'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal',
		(int) 1 => 'Reasi',
		(int) 2 => 'the United India Insurance Company Limited',
		(int) 3 => 'the Insurance Company',
		(int) 4 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 5 => 'Delhi Transport Corporation',
		(int) 6 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 7 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 8 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 9 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 10 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 11 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 12 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 13 => 'Court',
		(int) 14 => 'Rs.1500/-',
		(int) 15 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 16 => 'Award.11',
		(int) 17 => 'Court',
		(int) 18 => 'the Claims Petition',
		(int) 19 => 'Tribunal'
	),
	'PRODUCT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Award'
	),
	'PERCENT' => array(
		(int) 0 => '50%',
		(int) 1 => '6%'
	),
	'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'The Award of the Tribunal'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Rs.3,55,000/-'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '911692',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/133917/motor-vehicles-act-1939-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1939</a> - Section 168;',
		'appealno' => 'CIMA No. 171 OF 2007.',
		'appellant' => 'United India Insurance Company Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Krishna Devi and ors.',
		'casenote' => '[MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA; ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] - Rajasthan Sales Tax Act; Central Sales Tax Act - The respondent deposited sales tax at the rate of 10% assuming that Jaljira is not a Masala and hence taxable at the general rate of 10% as residuary entry 199, which reads as under: "199. The counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the respondent is liable to pay sales tax at the rate of 16% on the product manufactured by it and the assessing officer was justified in treating the respondent liable to pay sales tax at the rate of 16%. The officer, however, referred to the contents of the notification dated 29.03.2001 holding that jaljira is a masala and the same falls in the category of packed masala and therefore liable to be taxed at the rate of 16% as mentioned under Entry No. 184 of rate notification.

The assessing officer has specifically stated that jaljira is multi-ingredient packed masala and therefore respondent is liable to pay sales tax on the manufactured Jaljira at the rate of 16%. 13. Appellant filed two appeals before the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer challenging the aforesaid order of Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Ajmer. The order dated 15.03.2004 passed by the Tax Assessment Officer is restored. Other products of the assessee such as Aachar Masala, Jaljeera powder, Anar Masala, Methi Chatani, Pudina, Lehsoon Chatni, Chat Masala, Kitchen Masala, Mangodi Masala, Sambhar Masala, Dal Masala, Kasuri Methi, Heena Powder, Shikkai Powder, Lahsoon powder, must be held to be Masala packed falling under Entry No. 184 of the notification dated 29.03.2001.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => 'Mr. Vishnu Gupta, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Mr. Y.P.Kaushal, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Jammu and Kashmir',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2010-12-30',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Mr. Justice J.P.Singh, J',
		'judgement' => '1. Krishna Devi-respondent s Claim for compensation for the death of her son Raj Kumar, who, received head injury, besides other multiple injuries while sitting in his Autorikshaw near Cinema Hall, Katra, when hit by a rashly and negligently driven Bus No. DLIP-1521 on February 27, 1999, was allowed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Reasi vide its Award of August 31, 2007, directing the United India Insurance Company Limited to pay her Rs.3,81,400/- along with interest, as compensation, finding that her son had died because of the injuries received in the accident, which had occurred as a result of the rash and negligent driving of Bus bearing registration No. DLIP-1521. Aggrieved by the Award, the Insurance Company has appealed to this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Appellants learned counsel submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal as payable to the respondent was excessive having been determined adopting untenable method for assessment of compensation. The finding of the Tribunal on the income of the deceased at the time of his death too has been assailed as unwarranted. Relying on Sarla Verma and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported as 2009 ACJ, 1298, learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the Award impugned in the Appeal, holds the claimant entitled to such amount of compensation which, by no stretch of reasoning can be termed as unjust, and even if the multiplier method, as suggested by the appellant s counsel, were to be adopted to assess the compensation, the same amount of compensation, as assessed by the Tribunal, would become payable to the claimant thus warranting no interference with the Award in Appeal. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The appellant-Insurance Company did not produce any evidence to rebut the evidence of the claimant, and the Tribunal had, therefore, to consider the claimant s evidence alone to determine the compensation payable to the claimant for the death of her son in the motor vehicular accident. The Tribunal, assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4000/-, finding the claimant s plea that her son would earn Rs.6000/- per month, exaggerated, by adopting the Unitary system. The dependency of the mother on the income of the deceased was assessed at Rs.2700/- per month. Taking the age of the deceased into consideration, the multiplier of 18 prescribed for the age group of persons between 25 to 30 years, has been scaled down by the Tribunal to 11 to assess the compensation payable to the claimant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The finding of the Tribunal in assessing the dependency of the claimant on the income of the deceased is found untenable because the age of the mother and the number of years she was likely to survive, in the ordinary course, needing compensation for her sustenance, have not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal while assessing compensation. Although the Tribunal has erred in assessing the compensation payable to the claimant yet keeping in view the fact that the accident had taken place more than 11 years ago, it would be appropriate for this Court to determine the compensation payable to the claimant, itself, in terms of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act rather than directing the remand of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The deceased was 26 years of age at the time of his death and was a driver by profession. He owned his own Autorikshaw from where he would earn for his own sustenance and for the sustenance of his mother.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In view of the law laid down in Sarla Verma s case, Rs.1500/- needs to be added towards the future prospects of the deceased in earning more in the years to come, in the income of the deceased. The finding of the Tribunal holding the income of the deceased at the time of his death at Rs.4000/-, is supported by the evidence on records and in the absence of any evidence in rebuttal, no interference therewith may be warranted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Thus calculating the dependency of the claimant, on the income of the deceased, including therein the future income of the deceased, the dependency of the claimant would come to Rs.2750/- deducting 50% out of the so ascertained income of the deceased that he would have spent on his own, had he survived. According to the guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma s case, 11 is indicated as the appropriate multiplier for the age group of the claimant at the time of the accident. Which, according to her evidence, was less than 55 years. Thus, in the circumstances, finding 10 as the suitable multiplier and taking Rs.2750/- as the monthly dependency of the claimant-mother on the income of her deceased son, the compensation payable to the claimant for the death of her son on whom she was wholly dependent comes to Rs.3,30,000/-. Adding Rs.10,000/- for loss of love and affection, Rs.10,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.5000/- for funeral expenses, the total compensation payable to the claimant would come to Rs.3,55,000/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Award of the Tribunal, in view of the above findings, therefore, needs to be modified.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Accordingly, setting aside the findings of the Tribunal on the question of assessment of compensation, its Award is modified as Award for an amount of Rs.3,55,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the Claim Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. This Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of with the above modification in the Award.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The amount which is in deposit in this Court in the Appeal shall be released in favour of the respondent-claimant in terms of the modified Award minus the amount already received by her during the pendency of the Appeal and the Claims Petition before the Tribunal.',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'Krishna Devi and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '911692'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
$shops2 = null
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

LAW: Section 168

CARDINAL: 1, 18, 11, 11, 10

PERSON: Krishna Devi-respondent, Raj Kumar, Autorikshaw, DLIP-1521, DLIP-1521, Award, Sarla Verma, Award, Award, Autorikshaw, Sarla Verma s case, Sarla Verma s case, Award, Award, Award

FAC: Cinema Hall

GPE: Katra, Rs.4000/-, Rs.4000/-

DATE: February 27, 1999, August 31, 2007, 2009, 1298, monthly, between 25 to 30 years, years, more than 11 years ago, 26 years of age, the years, less than 55 years, monthly, Rs.10,000/-, Rs.10,000/-

ORG: the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Reasi, the United India Insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company, Tribunal, Delhi Transport Corporation, Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, Court, Rs.1500/-, Tribunal, Award.11, Court, the Claims Petition, Tribunal

PRODUCT: Award

PERCENT: 50%, 6%

WORK_OF_ART: The Award of the Tribunal

NORP: Rs.3,55,000/-