Haryana Agricultural University Vs. Devi Prakash and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalising the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. the choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants whichever is higher) and by the calculation as to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the multiplicand by way of annual interest. in ascertaining this, regard should also be had to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed up over the period for which the dependency is expected to last. deceased aged 43 years at time of accident and was hawker. multiplier of 10 and rate of interest @ 6% p.a. would be appropriate and not multiplier of 15 and interest rate @ 9% p.a. fixed by high court. compensation was determined at rs.2,00,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. order1. we have heard learned counsel for the parties. the appeal is directed against a judgment of the punjab & haryana high court in a second appeal. no question of law was raised before the high court. the finding of fact recorded by the district judge which were endorsed by the high court is that the respondents were technical hands and were matriculates with iti certificates and were entitled to a pay scale of 1200-2040. the learned counsel for the appellant has sought to produce before us a document dated 18th september 1991. this document is subsequent to the suit and in any case was not exhibited in the present proceedings. we, therefore, decline the prayer of the learned counsel for the appellant to take this on record.2. in view of the above, we find no merit in this appeal. it is, accordingly, dismissed.

Judgment:

ORDER

1. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. The appeal is directed against a judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in a second appeal. No question of law was raised before the High Court. The finding of fact recorded by the District Judge which were endorsed by the High Court is that the respondents were technical hands and were matriculates with ITI certificates and were entitled to a pay scale of 1200-2040. The learned Counsel for the appellant has sought to produce before us a document dated 18th September 1991. This document is subsequent to the suit and in any case was not exhibited in the present proceedings. We, therefore, decline the prayer of the learned Counsel for the appellant to take this on record.

2. In view of the above, we find no merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed.