Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


JAGDISH PURI & ORS v DHARAM SINGH & ORS - CMA Case No. 775 of 2007 [2007] RD-RJ 861 (13 February 2007)

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.775/2007

(Jagdish Puri & ors. Vs. Dharam Singh & ors.)

Date of Order :: 13th February 2007


Mr. Manish Pitaliya for the appellants. ....

For awarding compensation to the parents, wife and minor son of vehicular accident victim Dinesh Puri, about 20 years of age, the Tribunal has not accepted the assertion of the claimants about the deceased earning Rs.4,000/- per month while serving in a Marble Factory for want of any cogent corroborative evidence and has put an estimate on his income at Rs.2,400/- per month; and after deducting one-third therefrom and taking multiplicand at Rs.19,200/- per annum and with application of multiplier of 17 has assessed pecuniary loss at Rs.3,26,400/-. The Tribunal has further allowed

Rs.10,000/- to each of the four claimants towards loss of love, affection, services and guidance of the victim and has allowed an additional amount of Rs.10,000/- to his wife towards loss of consortium; and while allowing Rs.3,600/- towards funeral expenses has awarded total compensation in the sum of

Rs.3,80,000/- and has allowed interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application after adjustment of the amount received under No Fault Liability.

The claimants seek enhancement in this appeal.

Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and having examined the award in its totality, this Court is of opinion that the award on its quantification of compensation stands rather on the higher side and rules out any scope for enhancement. For want of any reliable evidence about earnings of the deceased the Tribunal cannot be said to have erred in putting an estimate of Rs.2,400/- on his monthly income and taking multiplicand of Rs.19,200/- after deducting one-third on his personal expenditure. The Tribunal has applied maximum side multiplier of 17 though the deceased was about 20 years of age. Moreover, the Tribunal has proceeded to allow non-pecuniary loss at Rs.50,000/- rather on the higher side.

In the overall analysis, the award in question could only be said to be wee bit on the higher side and in any case, there remains no scope for upward revision.

The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed summarily. [DINESH MAHESHWARI], J.



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


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 |

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