Parvati Devi Vs. Baldev Singh and ors.

Parvati Devi vs Baldev Singh and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Nov 16, 2012

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/955453

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/955453
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: G.P. Mittal
Decided On: Nov 16, 2012
Subject: Motor Vehicles

Case Summary

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

Motor Vehicles

Key legal issue: Motor Vehicles

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Parvati Devi

Respondent

Baldev Singh and ors.

Excerpt

.....company ..... respondents advocate for r-2 coram: hon'ble mr. justice g.p.mittal judgment g. p. mittal, j.(oral) 1. the appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 07.03.2005 passed by the motor accident claims tribunal (the claims tribunal) whereby a claim petition filed under section 163-a of the motor vehicles act, was dismissed solely on the ground that the claim petition was not maintainable as the deceaseds income was claimed to be more than ` 40,000/- per annum.2. it is urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that before the claims tribunal the income of the deceased as a driver was claimed at ` 3,000/per month. no proof of the deceaseds income was filed by the appellant. the appellant parvati devi, as her own witness testified that her son was earning ` 5,000-6,000/- per month, that is why the claim petition was dismissed.3. in the claim petition, the income of the deceased was claimed as ` 3,000/- per month but there was no cogent evidence produced in support thereof.4. the appellant parvati devi was entitled to compensation only on the basis of the minimum wages of an unskilled worker, that is, ` 1,545/- per month. obviously, this amount was much less than the capped income of ` 40,000/- per annum as mentioned in the second schedule.5. in view of this the appeal is allowed; the impugned order is set aside and a compensation of ` 1,97,760/- is awarded towards loss of dependency (1545 x 2/3 x 12 x 16).6. the deceased was a bachelor. the appellant would be further entitled to a sum of ` 2,000/- towards loss to estate and ` 2,500/- towards funeral expenses.7. the overall compensation thus comes to ` 2,02,260/- which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its payment.8. the award amount shall be deposited with the claims tribunal within six months and shall be equally proportioned amongst the appellants.9. pending applications stand disposed of. (g.p. mittal) judge november 16 2012 v

Full Judgment

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:

16. h November, 2012 + MAC. APP. 488/2005 PARVATI DEVI Through ..... Appellant Mr.O.P.Mannie, Advocate versus BALDEV SINGH & ORS. Through Mr.Pankaj Seth, Insurance Company ..... Respondents Advocate for R-2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.

(ORAL) 1. The Appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 07.03.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby a Claim Petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, was dismissed solely on the ground that the Claim Petition was not maintainable as the deceaseds income was claimed to be more than ` 40,000/- per annum.

2. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that before the Claims Tribunal the income of the deceased as a driver was claimed at ` 3,000/per month. No proof of the deceaseds income was filed by the Appellant. The Appellant Parvati Devi, as her own witness testified that her son was earning ` 5,000-6,000/- per month, that is why the Claim Petition was dismissed.

3. In the Claim Petition, the income of the deceased was claimed as ` 3,000/- per month but there was no cogent evidence produced in support thereof.

4. The Appellant Parvati Devi was entitled to compensation only on the basis of the minimum wages of an unskilled worker, that is, ` 1,545/- per month. Obviously, this amount was much less than the capped income of ` 40,000/- per annum as mentioned in the second schedule.

5. In view of this the Appeal is allowed; the impugned order is set aside and a compensation of ` 1,97,760/- is awarded towards loss of dependency (1545 x 2/3 x 12 x 16).

6. The deceased was a bachelor. The Appellant would be further entitled to a sum of ` 2,000/- towards loss to estate and ` 2,500/- towards funeral expenses.

7. The overall compensation thus comes to ` 2,02,260/- which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Petition till its payment.

8. The award amount shall be deposited with the Claims Tribunal within six months and shall be equally proportioned amongst the Appellants.

9. Pending Applications stand disposed of. (G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE NOVEMBER 16 2012 v

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2012 Same Parties Parvati Devi vs Baldev Singh and ors. Same Subject Motor Vehicles Same Judge G.P. Mittal