(O&M)Smt.Santosh And Others v. Har Chand And Another













































 
  

 




!"
# $%&%!'(
))  * + )
++

+
)))),, -- '& .++


+


))) &,!'# '&  ( /0
)
+
+.
+


Present:

Mr. Himanshu Arora, Advocate and Mr. Vijay Sheoran, Advocate for the applicants/appellants.

Mr. Jasbir Singh, Advocate for for respondent No.1.





  
 
 
  


 .

***** +.
+
)
) 1 -  *2  3

 **  3





 
!"#$%&'(
 
  





 )

*

 







*
     
 

&&#&#



 

+



,-  
.-

/&&
*

 


*
) 


.-









 

&&#&#


 
 ) 

  
 -



 

)
 


0


 







































 )1  

+-
1  




 

+ *


 
*

-


.2
)
3 
4
 -


)
 

 
 
     


 ) 






 


 


-



3  
*
   


  


''4



 
)



-



 


 
) -


 

 

 






 
  -



 

 
 
*



  



 

)

 
  




    -*



 



 
!"#$"&'(


3 
%


5  

 
   

 

44'

  -



 
 
  

)
 
 ) -



 + *  -






)
    /


  
*

 





) 





)
 


0


 


 

+




.-


,-
 

*

 
 -



   
-

* 


  
 
  

* ) 







+ *  -






)



 

&&#&#



 


+ *  -

*


 

 


.2
)
3 
4
 -



 
 



 






3 



 
  



 


 




 


  
- 
    # 6 

 
 




 

 

 *




















/

















  

44'


 -



 
 
  

67#&&$&&/ 
)
   
7 

&&#&#

 









)
 


-


) %




 
)-
"#$%&'

"#$"&'

 


"






)
 
-

* 
&"&/&&/  
 



 
*



 /'

#&4&&&



 

- 
!"!1
&4!1
51%67'

-8(


 
 3 
""

  
 

'$$
"!1
&4!1
5$8
 
*



 .#%&&&&8

)
*



 


  
 -* 




'9







 -

   
  : 

 



3 
2




 
 
  *
 +




rash and negligent
driving on the part of respondent No.1, *

driver
* 
-
 -
 +
 ;0#%/'
(for short 'offending vehicle'), which was insured with respondent No.2. 4 6

 -


 *-
 
*


  <

                                     

 !"    
#    $

%  &' ( 

 )   %   ) )   & ' !

    

) #*+ 




















#

















         (  &', ,   - $





 






 ' 
-



- -
 -




   
*




.#%&&&&8



 

   

 



3 
2


 -
*

=
'9
 





 -

   

 :  & 6 -
-- 







)
 



 

)
 
 

)
  



 
1 

)
 






  

 



 
 



- -





 

 
1 

)




 


 
 

 
 
 


 
 







- -
-




 
  *

 
* 
- 
 -
 
*
*
 
*
 
 


 )

) 


 
> 

 






  )> 

)
 
)
 
 --


 -


  -
 -

 
 

 
1 

)

*  5 
 



 
-




-
*

 
*


 

.#%&&&&8

)
*

)
  > 

 


) 

)







 

 


)
* 
5 
 



  *


  

)


*
 

6  
  





















%

















 
 
)





 



 

 

  

*
5 
 
 


*
%
 
-


 

%

)



*

 

$


 )


 



 

)
* 
  
 
 

  






 
?






 
)  )
 






  
 
 



  
 


&&'!"(
3

+ 1-
. 19 '#
!4 1&
.&)
-4%
1 '&,!1 !1,!1 %!'
'#
'!4 1
&4
!"(
3
"$&
 %!'

-
'&71 '$
!)
0#
.&) 1 '

:
+ 4%
'#
4 1
&$
!#(
..
! (
///

;9
 ' 1 - '&71 '$
!)
0#)
<)
 '7
 9
-% &
47417
 9

4 1&
!&(

3 4$&
'% #
'#%
'&71 '$
!)
0#)
.&)
+ %'# 1
= 71) / On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents argued that the award in question is well reasoned and justified. The material on file has been appreciated in the correct perspective while assessing the compensation and no interference in the same is thus called for and appeal in hand be dismissed. #



@> 


 A

)
 ) 
)
, A) 

 
 

3



%<%-
*>
+?
+: #
 &4 1
4 9 #
'# 4 1&
.&)
!4#)
 9 -
'#
'!4 1



)


* 
- 

 


 
 
  





*



 
*




)
> 

?

 
B*




)
> C 

* 
 







  
 

 
 

* 






 
*

 


* 


 



 
) 


- 
 

 
 -

  



 


)
 






















"

















  -




)
-  



)
 *

)

 
 

 
 


* 


 

 



)




 
) 


 


  
 

 


)
)



) -
 ) 
?

 )*


 



 


)
 






 
- 

) 
 
)

-  -
 
 

 -



 


 


 

1 

)


)
+-

   
)    %   
3 
* 


-

;D



)

*




3
2






*
--
.%&&&8




 
) 
.%&8

E
 

 


    

 
? 

3
2






;D#
*


 

 

F?;#
, *



 
 


  


  


-


;D#


 -


 -
 
*


 

 -





 
 



  -
 
*



 


 

+




''4



)
-

 .%&&&8






)
-
 
?
) 

 
?

 
*
 

 
 
- 

 



  
, *



 

)
./&&&8

 *

 ) 




 

+

 
*
  -   



+

&) ?@

 " E
*
%


-


 
)







 
#&9





)





 






















4


 * 
  
  

*

*
 *

1 '

:
+ 4%A& $ &
&7,1 ?
*
+

 

&)? @


&) ?@ B&) @) 4 E


)

 


-

*
minor son and minor daughter
  - 
8/


 


)



 * 
 

-
?




*
 *

+ 1-
. 19 A&
$ &

&7,1 



-

 




  
 
.$&&8


 


 
 


&)

?*@

&) ?@
C
) $ 

-   
 *

+ 1-
. 19 A&
$ &
&7,1 

 

$


)





*
%


-



-

 

 


  


&)*??@

&)

?*@
C
) ' 


 


  
 
!*


 (



 





&)>?

  
 

&)
?@
 *  

  


&) 2?@
 * 




&) 2?@

  
 
?




*
 *

1 '

:
+ 4%A&
$ &
&7,1 ) 5+*
 -
  
 

/
*

 
 -





 

 





&)?@


 





  



*

*
 *

 '7
 9A&
$ &
&7,1 


+ %'# 1
= 71A&
$ &
&7,1 
*
+



 

&)>?2?@

&)*??@
B
&) ?2?@) &   - 



 

)
*



 8  



<




















$

















S.No.

Under Head Compensation awarded by the High Court 1.

Monthly income of deceased Rs.3000/- per month 2.

Age of deceased 25 years 3.

Future prospects @ 40% Rs.1200/- 4.

Total income Rs.4,200/-per month 5.

Number of dependents 6.

Deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased (1/3rd) Rs.1400/- 7.

Annual loss of dependency .//"&&8
!.$&&8
G
( 8.

Multiplier 9.

Compensation on account of Loss of dependency Rs.6,04,800/- (Rs.//"&&8 X 18).

10.



 

  
 

  
 
* Rs.70,000/- 11.



 

 -
  
 



  

! 


-( Rs.80,000/- (Rs.40,000/- each) Total Compensation &)>?2?@ Interest 9%  .  








 
*
 


 8  


 





&)>?2?@



 




 
 
 


&) ??@
&)>?2?@
 &)?2?@
!1!7'# #
!""
!
&) ?2?@


) 



  *


 -*





'9








 -

   

#&4&&&

 : 
) 
)

 
> 

 
7 




 



 .4%&&&8

 -
*
 

)


  
 

/ ! 
 -(
* 
) 



)


  
 
!*(
 -




















'

















*
 

 .-



 

 



*
 
 
 




 

 


, A) 

 
 

D
; 
! (
 %/#

&&
 
 D
--% 'E  ' 1 -
'&71 '$
!9, ':
. 1&7&
'%!'
!"
'#% '#
!4 1&?

 "&/&

 






*

 




  
!6(



>

-  / ; -



 
!(

 

 
 

























+.
+
 ))  *








































  ; +
+ D
 +-8   < H8 D
 )  < H8