Raj Gupta vs Jagdish Kumar - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 2792

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 2792

ARCHANA PURI
Raj Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Jagdish Kumar – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Rajesh Gaur, Advocate; For the Appellant
Mr. Harjinder Singh, Advocate for Respondent No.3.

JUDGMENT

Mrs. Archana Puri, J.

The present appeal has been filed by the appellants-claimants, thereby, seeking enhancement of the compensation, granted, on account of death of Purshotam Lal Gupta, in a motor vehicular accident, which took place on 11.06.2011.

2. So far as the fact of accident and manner of its taking place, as well as liability fastened upon the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, to be joint and several are concerned, it is pertinent to mention that no appeal has been filed by the persons, so made liable to challenge the Award and thus, findings so recorded by learned Tribunal have attained finality.

3. The specific case pleaded by the appellants-claimants in the claim petition is that Purshotam Lal Gupta (since deceased) was a registered medical practitioner and was earning Rs. 30,000/- per month and on this account, the appellants-claimants had claimed compensation to the extent of Rs. 30 lakh.

4. However, on appraisal of the evidence brought on record, learned Tribunal had reached the conclusion that no satisfactory evidence, with regard to extent of earnings of Rs. 30,000/- per month, as such, has been established and considering the evidence, s