NCLT: Suspended Directors Who are Prospective Resolution Applicants Cann’t Access Valuation Reports  ||  Supreme Court Clarifies Test For Granting Bail to Accused Added at Trial under Section 319 CrPC  ||  SC: Fresh Notification For Vijayawada ACB Police Station not Required After AP Bifurcation  ||  SC: Studying in a Government Institute Does Not Create an Automatic Right to a Government Job  ||  NCLT Mumbai: CIRP Claims Cannot Invoke the 12-Year Limitation Period For Enforcing Mortgage Rights  ||  NCLAT: Misnaming Guarantor as 'Director' in SARFAESI Notice Doesn't Void Guarantee Invocation  ||  Jharkhand HC: Mere Breach of Compromise Terms by an Accused Does Not Justify Bail Cancellation  ||  Cal HC: Banks Cannot Freeze a Company's Accounts Solely Due To ROC Labeling a 'Management Dispute'  ||  Rajasthan HC: Father’s Rape of His Daughter Transcends Ordinary Crime; Victim’s Testimony Suffices  ||  Delhi HC: Judge Who Reserved Judgment Must Deliver Verdict Despite Transfer; Successor Can't Rehear    

The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Sunil Parsharam Garud - (High Court of Bombay) (29 Oct 2015)

Surviving spouse entitled to compensation even if both were earning members

Insurance

In a case regarding compensation for the death of a woman in a motor vehicle accident, the Bombay High Court determined that though the surviving husband was earning at the time of the incident, it could not be said that there was no loss of dependency. Aside from the need of the day of a husband and wife supplementing each other’s income, it noted that living together conferred benefits on both of reduced joint living expenses. The Court held not only was the claimant entitled to compensation for dependency, the insurance company had erred in taking the age of the deceased and ought to have considered the husband’s age in computing compensation.

Tags : DEPENDENCY   COMPENSATION   EARNING SPOUSE   SAVINGS  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved