State of Punjab and anr. Vs. Kaushalya Devi and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- [ b.c. ray; m.p. thakkar, jj.] -- motor accident — compensation — multiplier of 27 applied by high court in computing dependency benefits having regard to facts and circumstances of the case without laying down any general proposition of law — supreme court's interference not called for — motor vehicles act, 1939, section 110-b -- but for the fact that the valuation of the subject matter of the appeal exceeded rs 20,000 this court may well have refused to entertain this appeal. learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the high court has been unduly liberal in applying the multiplier of 27 in making computation of the despandency (sic dependency) benefits. - dismissing the appeal it was held that the high court was justified in applying the principle considering the facts and circumstances of the case but will not operate as a good precedent for the future cases.b.c. ray; m.p. thakkar, jj.1. but for the fact that the valuation of the subject matter of the appeal exceeded rs 20,000 this court may well have refused to entertain this appeal. since, however, a certificate on the basis of the valuation has been granted, this appeal has come up for hearing.2. the appeal arises out of an award rendered in favour of the dependants of the victim of an accident caused by a motor vehicle belonging to the appellant-state. learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the high court has been unduly liberal in applying the multiplier of 27 in making computation of the despandency (sic dependency) benefits. it appears to us that on a fair reading of the judgment of the high court, it is possible to take the view that the high court has not laid down as a matter of general proposition of law that a multiplier of 27 should be taken in all such cases. the high court has awarded compensation on the aforesaid footing having regard to the facts and circumstances of this particular case and it will not operate as a precedent for future. on the facts and circumstances of the present case, we do not think, we would be justified in interfering with the award passed by the high court. the appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.