Skip to content


Smt. Hardeep Kaur and anr. Vs. State of Punjab and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 1126 of 1970
Judge
Reported inAIR1974SC1995; (1975)1SCC156; 1974(6)LC288(SC)
AppellantSmt. Hardeep Kaur and anr.
RespondentState of Punjab and anr.
Excerpt:
.....[219 f] therefore, on the facts, the goodwill was an asset of an enduring nature. the fact that payment was to be made over a number of years and the nature of a chartered accountant's business lead to this conclusion. [219 f] - both the tribunal as well as the high court found that the driver of the pwd truck was negligent, that gurdeep singh was earning 18.13.8 per week, that he was 25 years of age and that the span of life of his parents would be 60 to 65 years & that compensation to be awarded should be calculated on the basis of 20 years capitalisation of the amounts which he would be sending to his parents. the appellants will have their costs in this court as well as in the high court......motor accidents claims tribunal, punjab by rs. 24,000/-.2. the appellants are the parents of one gurdeep singh who, while he and his fiancee were going on a scooter, was knocked down by a p.w.d. lorry belonging to the government of punjab and was killed. it is not denied that gurdeep singh was working in england and was earning 18-13-8 per week. he came home to get married and, as stated above, died in the accident. the parents of gurdeep singh filed a claim petition. his fiancee also filed a claim petition but did not pursue it. both the tribunal as well as the high court found that the driver of the pwd truck was negligent, that gurdeep singh was earning 18.13.8 per week, that he was 25 years of age and that the span of life of his parents would be 60 to 65 years & that compensation.....
Judgment:

Jaganmohan Reddy J.

1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which interfered and reduced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Punjab by Rs. 24,000/-.

2. The appellants are the parents of one Gurdeep Singh who, while he and his fiancee were going on a scooter, was knocked down by a P.W.D. Lorry belonging to the Government of Punjab and was killed. It is not denied that Gurdeep Singh was working in England and was earning 18-13-8 per week. He came home to get married and, as stated above, died in the accident. The parents of Gurdeep Singh filed a Claim Petition. His fiancee also filed a claim petition but did not pursue it. Both the Tribunal as well as the High Court found that the driver of the PWD truck was negligent, that Gurdeep Singh was earning 18.13.8 per week, that he was 25 years of age and that the span of life of his parents would be 60 to 65 years & that compensation to be awarded should be calculated on the basis of 20 years capitalisation of the amounts which he would be sending to his parents. While the Tribunal thought, though the evidence showed that the deceased was sending Rs. 800/- per month, the amount that he would have sent to his parents, having regard to the fact that he would have been married and would have a family, could reasonably be estimated as Rs. 400/- per month. The High Court calculated the compensation that one-third of his earnings per month, which was Rs. 1000/-, would be sent. This it fixed at Rs. 300/. per month. On the basis of Rs. 400/- per month, it is not denied that 20 year's capitalisation would be Rs. 96,000/- which was the amount awarded by the Tribunal; on the basis that Rs. 300/- would be sent the compensation would be Rs. 72,000/-.

3. In our view, the, High Court has committed a factual error in assuming that the earnings of Gurdeep Singh were Rs. 1,000/- per month while in fact it has accepted the Tribunal's finding that he was earning 18.13.8 per week which would come to Rs. 1,500/- per month. If this fact was taken into consideration and the High Court had not committed the error of taking the earnings of the deceased at Rs. 1000/- per month, it would have certainly confirmed the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

4. In this view, this appeal must be allowed. We accordingly set aside the judgment of the High Court and confirm the compensation of Rs. 96,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The appellants will have their costs in this Court as well as in the High Court.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //