Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Chameli Devi and ors. Vs. State of Haryana and ors.

Chameli Devi and ors. vs State of Haryana and ors.

Disposition Appeal allowed Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Jan 16, 1992
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/626010

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
First Appeal from the Order No. 1090 of 1985
Subject
Motor Vehicles
Disposition
Appeal allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract Rejection of highest bid Challenge as to Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in ...

Key legal issue
Motor Vehicles
Outcome / disposition
Appeal allowed
Acts & sections
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 110A and 110CC

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Chameli Devi and ors.

Advocate Naubat Singh Panwar, Adv.

Respondent

State of Haryana and ors.

Advocate Paul S. Saini and; Pardeep Bedi, Advs. for Respondent No. 4 and;

Legal References

Acts
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 110A and 110CC
Cases Referred
New Delhi v. Amar Kaur and Ors.
Reported In
(1993)105PLR106

Excerpt

.....statutory provisions or public duty, judicial review of such state action is inevitable. likewise, if state enters into a contract in consonance with article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a state or a statutory authority. for these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of article 299 was entered into between the parties. hence, if government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like larger public interest. the state, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. as a necessary corollary thereto state cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- consumer protection act, 1986 [c.a. no. 68/1986]. articles 14 & 300a: government contract noon-acceptance of highest bid held, it does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under article 300a right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [air 1984 p&h 282 (fb) explained] articles 14 & 226: government contract rejection of highest bid held, highest bidder has locus standi to..........ordered that if the amount of compensation was not made within 30 days of the date of the award, the claimants would be entitled to the interest on compensation at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the award till realization. it may be observed here that ram karan was working as a mate in the irrigation department and was drawing rs. 500/- per mensem as his salary and at the time of his death he was about 37 years of age. the tribunal while computing the compensation held that the dependency of the claimants was only to the extent of rs. 150/- per mensem and had appled a multiplier of 14. dissatisfied with the award of compensation, the claimants have come up in the present appeal. before adverting to the arguments, it may be observed here that the appeal of the state against the award of the tribunal (fao no. 47 of 1986) was dismissed in limine by this court on 18.2.1986.2. mr. naubat singh panwar-advocate, appearing on behalf of claimants-appellant, has submitted that the tribunal has grossly erred in holding that the dependency of the widow, 4 minors and the father was only rs. 150/- per mensem and the rest of rs. 350/- was being spent by the deceased on himself. he has further submitted that multiplier of atleast 16 should have been applied if not more. in support of his contention, he has cited a division bench judgment of this court in secretary, ministry of communications, government of india, new delhi v. amar kaur and ors., 1989(1) a.c.j. 82. in that case, the deceased was a labourer of 38 years of age and earning rs. 400/- per mensem and it was held in that case that dependency of the widow, 5 minor children was rs. 300/- and multiplier of 16 was applied.3. learned counsel for the respondents could not successfully counter the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants.4. after hearing the counsel for the parties i am of the view that the tribunal was wrong in holding that the dependency was only rs. 150/- and rs. 350/- was being.....

Full Judgment

R.S. Mongia, J.

1. On 19.10.1982 the Bus run by Motoria Bus Sevice in which Ram Karan, husband of appellant No. 1 Chameli Devi, was travelling, met with an accident with Haryana, Roadways Bus resulting in the death of said Ram Karan. Chameli Devi, widow, 4 minor children of Ram Karan-deceased as also his father filed the claim application for grant of compensation before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide his award dated 5.9.1985 held that the accident had been caused due to negligence of the driver of Haryana Roadways Bus. To the above said claimants, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 25,200/- in all and it was further ordered that if the amount of compensation was not made within 30 days of the date of the Award, the claimants would be entitled to the interest on compensation at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the Award till realization. It may be observed here that Ram Karan was working as a Mate in the Irrigation Department and was drawing Rs. 500/- per mensem as his salary and at the time of his death he was about 37 years of age. The Tribunal while computing the compensation held that the dependency of the claimants was only to the extent of Rs. 150/- per mensem and had appled a multiplier of 14. Dissatisfied with the Award of compensation, the claimants have come up in the present appeal. Before adverting to the arguments, it may be observed here that the Appeal of the State against the Award of the Tribunal (FAO No. 47 of 1986) was dismissed in limine by this Court on 18.2.1986.

2. Mr. Naubat Singh Panwar-Advocate, appearing on behalf of claimants-appellant, has submitted that the Tribunal has grossly erred in holding that the dependency of the widow, 4 minors and the father was only Rs. 150/- per mensem and the rest of Rs. 350/- was being spent by the deceased on himself. He has further submitted that multiplier of atleast 16 should have been applied if not more. In support of his contention, he has cited a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Secretary, Ministry of Communications, Government of India, New Delhi v. Amar Kaur and Ors., 1989(1) A.C.J. 82. In that case, the deceased was a labourer of 38 years of age and earning Rs. 400/- per mensem and it was held in that case that dependency of the widow, 5 minor children was Rs. 300/- and multiplier of 16 was applied.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents could not successfully counter the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants.

4. After hearing the counsel for the parties I am of the view that the Tribunal was wrong in holding that the dependency was only Rs. 150/- and Rs. 350/- was being spent by the deceased on himself. The status of the deceased was that of a Mate and in normal circumstances a major share of his earnings would normally be spent on the family which consisted of a widow, 4 minor children and his father. It would be reasonable to assess that the deceased was spending about Rs. 350/- on the family members and Rs. 150/- on himself. Consequently, I hold that the dependency of the claimant was Rs. 350/- per mensem. As observed above the deceased was 37 years of age and there is nothing on the record to show that he was suffering from any disease or any such like thing. In such circumstances this Court has been applying a multiplier of 16 as was done in the above referred case decided by the Division Bench. I am of the opinion that multiplier of 16 should have been applied. Consequently the compensation payable to the claimant would come to Rs. 67,200/-. The claimants would be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application. The Respondent-State is directed to make the payment of compensation as indicated above (after deducting the amount paid, if any) within 3 months from today. There will be no order as to costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial