Rani Devi And ORS. v. Baljeet Singh And ORS.
2023:PHHC:047398
!"
#$%&' (%$%)(*+ ,!-
(')%)(.+ ,!-
! /0 !1 2 !
" !"
# " $ $% &'&( )**+ $
!', $% -(&( )**, ."
# " $
!) $% &'&( )**+ $ $% -(&( )**, "
# " $
!''
! /# 0
$% -(&( )**, !
1"
# " $
!( /# $% &'&( )**+ 33333 !
&1+ 0-
#
"3
3
4 #
4
'(*&)**,
$3
" # 5 4$% &'&( )**+ ) 6 $% &'&( )**+7 3 4 # #
'(*&)**,
##
3"8 649 3:74 # 4# ## 4
4
# ##
" 6 $% -(&( )**,73 4 444
#
5
4
- ## #4#"
3" 3 ; <
! " #
$%&$'()'(* !
+! ',
!
!
%(
"-
!
" "
"
!
"
" "
"
!
!
.
,#/0 )
+ &
" & 12'
!
3(45
"6 & = # "
!' )
" #
" 4 44 3
#
3 #
# 4 #
!'
#
3
)("***> "
?
3
4 8
3
5" # 3
4 44
#
4
3 " 4 #
&'
!& (6
48
7" "
3 # #54"
@# 4# # @ # 44
4
4
!
4
!&
#
#
3
!&"
#
# &)
!,6/ 48
7#
# 4 #
!A -'
>*)', ##
5# 4 44
#
#
#
4 #
( ! # 4
0
3 4
4 ; <(
8"
" "
"
% &$'(,2(41*
%( "
"
, 9 :,,
!
"
!
9 :,,
%( !
!
% $ , -
!
9 :,& &6 , % 4 # >
"
3
!'" ) B - 4 4 #
C " #
# 4 &",+"D**> %
4
3 #
!'
'",+"***> " !) -
'"**"***> # !& (
(*"***> #@ 4 !) - 3
E
35 3 #
+(F 4 4 !'"& ( 3
E
35
# 4 4-
)(F3 # '"& ( + /
# 4 # D 4
" 3 $% -(&( )**, 4
3 4#4 # 3
# # @ #
# G
" #
3
3 4
3
3 # 44 # # # #3 / #
3# 3 4
# 4 $% -(&( )**,
3
# # '* !
3
3
# 4 $% -(&( )**, 4 5 3 4
3 '' "
# C 4#4##
4 44
# 3
4 # # # 4 # " #
#
$% -(&( 4)**, 3 3
') /$% &'&( )**+"
# 3 44# 3 #
3##44 # " 4 H >
3 #
4 3 4'+
4',5
4
3 ),
3 # 4
-"***> I "
)("***> 4 # 4 /4
" H judgment rendered in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680.
13.
PW-2, Rani Devi, deposed that her husband (Ajmer Singh) used to earn Rs. 25,000/- per month from agriculture as well as poultry farm. Petitioners No. 2-3 minor children, petitioners No. 4-5 parents and petitioner No. 6 grand father of the deceased were dependent on his income. She being the wife of the deceased was also obviously dependent on his income. His age was 26 years and he was in good health. To meet the minimum needs of the family of 7 members (including himself), naturally he would be doing every possible thing, by adopting all out means (including working overtime) to increase his earning. In these circumstances, I deem it appropriate to assess the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/- instead of Rs. 3,000/- as assessed by the learned Tribunal. Award of the Tribunal is, inter alia, premised on following reasoning:-
24. "In case of Rani Devi etc. Vs. Baljeet etc. admittedly the deceased Ajmer was not having his land but he was supporting his father as well as it is claimed that he was having a poultry farm, which is not roved. Even if, he is skilled labourer helping his father in agriculture then he must be earning Rs.3000 per month. Lie any other human beings he must be contributing two units for himself and 8 unit towards his family members i.e. petitioners No.1 to 5. However, petitioner No.6 is not entitled to any compensation as grand father is not treated as a dependent upon his grand son particularly, when his own son is alive. He was a young man of 26 years. Thus, I award multiplier of 16. The total amount comes to Rs.4, 60,800/-. Petitioner No.1 is entitled to Rs.5000/- towards consortium as well as Rs.2000 for cremation. The total amount of compensation comes to Rs.4, 67,800/- in case Rani Devi etc. Vs. Baljeet etc.
25. In this case, the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle and naturally, the respondents No.4 to 6 are not liable to make the payment of compensation. The amount of compensation is to be recovered from the respondents No.1 and 2. Hence, both these issues are decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents."
'& # # 42412"56"4#"
15# " 7" "7" #""
8+'-#9:; 0< 7"" " 5 9" 1 01 =1 "> 2# &
+$*-$.2
. !?4 "5 9" 1016"
9 45 #9#"94#"
"
$8+'-2
+ "
-$)'" 4# ##
3 ;
> #
4##
*&*G)**- ),
# 4
("***> $ #J&*F )"***> /# +"***> J '+ +"***H')H'+K'&")D"***>
#
'>( '&")D"*** )"D(",**K''"&)"&**>
6&&"***H(7 )")*"***> 04A ',"(**> $ H ',"(**> '-"G("&**>
3 3 &",+"D**> A#
4 # G")+",**> '( ## "
4 3
#
# 3 3 #
3"4 44 4 # # 4 3 3 # 4)4 # # # 3 4
"4 #
4 -F3 4 44 4 # ',.
The accident in question took place on 04.09.2003 resulting into the death of victim Ajmer Singh. By now his minor children have become major. In
the premise, revised compensation amount be disbursed to the cla 4
4
" 4 ;
1. Rani Devi widowRs. 8,95,400/-
2. Anjali Devi daughter Rs. 1,50,000/-
3. Ajay Kumar son Rs. 1,50,000/-
4. Ram Rati mother Rs. 1,00,000/-
5. Jai Bhagwan father Rs. 1,00,000/- '+ " (')%)(.
(%$%)(*
" 3
'D ?
# 67" 4 "
4 'G # 4
3 #
# #
# 4 + !
- !"
#$%&' > I 5 >
; L >! I 3 ; L >!