State Of Haryana vs Jasbir Kaur - 2003 Supreme(SC) 717

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2003 Supreme(SC) 717

ARIJIT PASAYAT, DORAISWAMY RAJU
State Of Haryana – Appellant
Versus
Jasbir Kaur – Respondent

Judgement Key Points

What is the just and reasonable amount of compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for a deceased agriculturist with uncertain income? What are the appropriate factors and evidence required to determine income and declare compensation in motor vehicle accident claims where agricultural income or dairy income is not clearly proven? What guidelines or principles govern the award of compensation to be just and not a windfall, including the use of multipliers and treatment of funeral expenses?

What is the just and reasonable amount of compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for a deceased agriculturist with uncertain income?

What are the appropriate factors and evidence required to determine income and declare compensation in motor vehicle accident claims where agricultural income or dairy income is not clearly proven?

What guidelines or principles govern the award of compensation to be just and not a windfall, including the use of multipliers and treatment of funeral expenses?

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.- Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the legality and propriety of the judgment rendered by Division Bench of High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, dismissing the appeal filed by the State of Haryana and General Manager, Road Transport, Fatehabad, the present appellants.

3. In a nutshell, the background facts relevant for the purpose of dealing with this appeal are as follows:

One Jagga Singh (hereinafter referred to as `the deceased ) lost his life in a vehicle accident on 3-2-1999. His widow (respondent No. 1) and minor son Sewak Singh (respondent No. 2) filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short `the Act ) for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 10 lakhs. In the claim petition the mother of the deceased was impleaded as proforma respondent. The claimants asserted in the claim petition that the vehicle involved in the accident was owned by the Haryana Roadways and one Om Parkash was driving the vehicle bearing No. HR-39-0418. It was pleaded that the deceased was 25 years old, was an agriculturist and was earning about Rs. 10,000/- per month by cultivating his agricultural land and from his

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 717

ARIJIT PASAYAT, DORAISWAMY RAJUState Of Haryana – AppellantVersusJasbir Kaur – Respondent

What is the just and reasonable amount of compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for a deceased agriculturist with uncertain income?

What are the appropriate factors and evidence required to determine income and declare compensation in motor vehicle accident claims where agricultural income or dairy income is not clearly proven?

What guidelines or principles govern the award of compensation to be just and not a windfall, including the use of multipliers and treatment of funeral expenses?

Cases Referred (1)

ARIJIT PASAYAT, DORAISWAMY RAJU
State Of Haryana – Appellant
Versus
Jasbir Kaur – Respondent