SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1994 Supreme(P&H) 1018

J.B.GARG, M.S.LIBERHAN
Sunita Rani – Appellant
Versus
Hardev Singh – Respondent


Judgment

1. The sole question raised in this appeal is with respect to the quantum of compensation payable to the widow and two minor children of less than 6 years of age of the deceased. Suresh Kumar (since deceased) aged 31 years was employed as Junior Engineer. He was drawing total emoluments of Rs. 2383.00 per month. Claimant Sunita Rani received Rs. 100000.00 from the Punjab State Electricity Board under the Group Insurance Scheme. Rs. 1,24,041.00 were received by her as special pensionary benefits in lieu of her right for compensation admissible under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. Sunita Rani was employed as clerk on compassionate ground. The Accident Claims Tribunal assessed the dependency of the claimants at Rs. 19,200.00 per annum and fixing a multiplier of 12 worked out the compensation payable to the claimants at Rs. 2,30,400.00-. The Tribunal deducted an amount of Rs. 1,24,041.00 paid as special pensionary benefits, and an amount of Rs. 100000/ - paid out of the Group Insurance Scheme and Rs. 15000.00- as per no fault liability clause and granted compensation of Rs. 10,000.00- each to the minor sons with 12% interest.

2. Sec. 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , h









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top