Skip to content


State of Punjab Vs. Parsini and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 1696 of 1968
Judge
Reported inAIR1977SC2033; (1977)1SCC33
ActsMotor Vehicles Act, 1939
AppellantState of Punjab
RespondentParsini and ors.
Excerpt:
.....court to widow of deceased and her seven children - court nowhere considered evidence given by applicant-widow as regards to income of deceased as vague or indefinite - held, on basis of income compensation calculated by high court is correct and appellant should pay that amount to applicant. - indian evidence act, 1872. section 3: [dr. arijit pasayat & ashok kumar ganguly, jj] circumstantial evidence held, conditions precedent before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established . they are - (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. the circumstances concerned 'must' or 'should' and not 'may be' established; (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of..........counsel for the state contended that the number of children was not seven. we have examined the evidence. the applicant stated that she had seven children. she mentioned three daughters and four sons. when she gave evidence they were all minor. that was sixteen years ago. there was no challenge to the evidence of the applicant. the high court said that the tribunal nowhere doubted the evidence as led by the applicant with regard to the income and further that the tribunal did not consider it either vague or indefinite.6. the high court on a consideration of the facts and circumstances came to the conclusion that rupees 200/- was the proper figure as the income of the deceased. the high court allowed a sum of rs. 60/- as the amount that must have been spent by the deceased on himself.....
Judgment:

A.N. Ray, C.J.

1. This appeal is by certificate from the judgment dated 26 April 1967 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Letters Patent Appeal No. 273 of 1963.

2. The respondent, Mst. Parsini, is the widow of Beer Chand. Beer Chand died on 26 March 1960 in an accident with a tractor belonging to the Punjab Public Works Department (Electricity Branch), Ludhiana.

3. The widow made an application under Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The Tribunal granted compensation of Rs. 2000/- to the applicant.

4. The learned single Judge on appeal upheld the order of the Tribunal. Thereupon the respondent filed Letters Patent Appeal which was allowed by the High Court. The High Court awarded Rs. 3000/- to each of the seven children and Rs. 4,200/- to the widow.

5. Counsel for the State contended that the number of children was not seven. We have examined the evidence. The applicant stated that she had seven children. She mentioned three daughters and four sons. When she gave evidence they were all minor. That was sixteen years ago. There was no challenge to the evidence of the applicant. The High Court said that the Tribunal nowhere doubted the evidence as led by the applicant with regard to the income and further that the Tribunal did not consider it either vague or indefinite.

6. The High Court on a consideration of the facts and circumstances came to the conclusion that Rupees 200/- was the proper figure as the income of the deceased. The High Court allowed a sum of Rs. 60/- as the amount that must have been spent by the deceased on himself with the result that the income of the family was Rs. 140/- p. m. On these facts the High Court found that the total compensation payable would be Rs. 25,200/-.

7. The High Court said that the proper distribution would be to allow Rupees 3000/- to each of the seven children and the balance of Rupees 4,200/- to the widow.

8. We are of the opinion that the judgment is correct. We do not see any reason to take a contrary view. For the foregoing reasons the judgment is upheld. The appeal is dismissed. The High Court has given adequate directions as to how the money will be distributed. The appellant will pay the costs to the respondents.


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