Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANOT versus SMT.MAYAWATI & ANR

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Haryana State Electricity Board and anot v. Smt.Mayawati & Anr - RSA-847-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 1180 (27 February 2006)

IN THE COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.2014-C of 2006 and

RSA NO.847 of 2006

DATE OF DECISION: March 3,2006

Haryana State Electricity Board and another ....Appellants

VERSUS

Smt.Mayawati and another

.....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
PRESENT: Shri Devinder Singh, Advocate for the appellants.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

Delay in making good deficiency in court fee is condoned.

The defendants Haryana State Electricity Board and another having concurrently lost before the two courts below have approached this Court through the present Regular Second Appeal.

A suit for recovery of Rs.3,00,000/- was filed by the plaintiffs claiming that Nand Lal had died on August 22, 1997, having come in contact with a live wire which was lying on the floor opposite House No.4, PWD Camp Chowk. It was claimed that Nand Lal was getting a salary of Rs.700/- per month from a Piao and was plying rickshaw from which he was earning Rs.2,000/- per month.

The plaintiffs claimed damages on account of death of aforesaid Nand Lal.

The learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. It was held that the defendants were indeed negligent in CM No.2014-C of 2006 and

keeping the live wire on the floor. It was also held that Nand Lal had died because of the aforesaid negligence of the defendants. The trial Court assessed the compensation payable to the plaintiff as Rs.75,000/-.

No appeal was filed by the defendants. An appeal was filed by the plaintiff for enhancement of the amount. The learned First Appellate Court re-appraised the entire evidence and came to the conclusion that Nand Lal's income could not be assessed less than Rs.2,700/- per month. His dependency was consequently assessed at Rs.2,000/-. A multiplier of 8 was applied and, therefore, the plaintiffs were held entitled to Rs.1,28,000/- as compensation. The appeal of the plaintiffs was thus allowed to that extent.

Nothing has been shown that the findings of fact recorded by the learned Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record.

No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal.

Dismissed.

March 03, 2006 (Viney Mittal)

KD Judge


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.