Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MOHAN SINGH & ANR versus PITAMBER JOSHI & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Mohan Singh & Anr v. Pitamber Joshi & Ors - RA-17-CII-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 5486 (10 August 2006)

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

......

CM No.6652-CII of 2006 and

R.A. No.17-CII of 2006 in

F.A.O. No.5584 of 2004

.....

Date of decision: 1.9.2006

Regional Manager, Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation .....Applicant-Appellant

v.

Pitamber Joshi and others

.....Respondents

....

Present: Mr. S.K. Verma, Advocate for the applicant-appellant.

.....

S.S. Saron, J.

The F.A.O. against the judgment and award dated 4.8.2004 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh was dismissed by this Court on 15.12.2004. The applicant filed S.L.P. in the Supreme Court of India which was dismissed as withdrawn on the statement made by counsel for the petitioner that the applicant wants to file review before the High Court to the effect that certain points which were urged were not taken note of and on the contrary it was recorded that no other point was urged. The review application is accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay of 424 days in filing the application.

Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has contended that this Court has not taken into account the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and also that the age of the victim at the time of her death was 39 years and, therefore, in terms of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, CM No.6652-CII/2006 and

R.A. No.17-CII/2006 in

F.A.O. No.5584/2004

[2]

1988 (`Act' for short) the multiplier of 14 was liable to be applied.

After giving my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant, I am of the view that the question regarding negligence was duly taken note of and it was held that the learned trial Court has rightly decided the issue regarding negligence in favour of the claimants and no fault could be found with the same. The other contention as regards multiplier of 14 being applicable is incorrect. The victim was 39 years of age at the time of her death and the Tribunal applied a multiplier of

16. In fact even in terms of Section 163-A of the Act, the multiplier of 16 is applicable in respect of those aged between 35 to 40 years. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that in terms of Section 163-A, a multiplier of 14 was to be applied is absolutely misplaced. Even otherwise the present claim petition has been filed under Section 166 of the Act and the multiplier of 16 has been rightly applied by the Tribunal.

In the circumstances, there is no such point which can be said to have been urged and was not taken note of and on the contrary it was rightly recorded that no other point was urged.

For the foregoing reasons, the question of delay is only academic. The present application is dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- which the applicant shall pay to the Legal Aid Service Authority, Haryana.

September 1, 2006. (S.S. Saron)

Judge

*hsp*


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.