MAC.APP./128/2012 of PRITHVI RAJ SAINI & ORS Vs KISHAN LAL & ANR
Parties
- MAC.APP./128/2012 of PRITHVI RAJ SAINI & ORS (PETITIONER)
- KISHAN LAL & ANR (RESPONDENT)
Cites (1 resolved of 7 detected)
Full text
solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+MAC.APP. 128/2012 & CM No.2029/2012PRITHVI RAJ SAINI & ORS.... Appellants
Through:Appellant in person
versus
KISHAN LAL & ANR..... Respondents
Through:None
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBAO R R%21.01.2016
The appeal was part-heard in the forenoon session.
The submissions made by the counsel for the appellant mainly werethat the benefit of minimum wages for skilled worker should have beengranted rather than assuming the income of the deceased notionally atRs.15,000/- per annum. The claim petition the judgment passed in whichhas been appealed against was preferred by appellants and grandmother ofArun aged 20 years, who admittedly was unmarried at the relevant point oftime.It was noticed that the Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 18having regard to the age of the deceased, which is impermissible in view ofthe law laid down in various binding judgments including Sarla Verma(Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121,Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54, National InsuranceCompany Ltd. V. Pushpa & Ors. (2015) 9 SCC 166 and Reshma Kumari V.Madan Mohan (2013) 9 SCC 65.The multiplier has to be adopted
according to the age of the claimants which in present case is higher thanthat of the deceased. Since the age of the father (the first appellant) was 53years and the age of the mother (the second appellant) was 49 years, themultiplier of 11 would have been the appropriate multiplier in the presentcase, the grandmother having since died even during the pendency of theinquiry before the Tribunal.In the above facts and circumstances, theTribunal appears to have fallen into serious error in computing thecompensation which, if revised, would turn out to be lower than what hasbeen granted.
The learned counsel for the appellant sought the mater to be passedover till after lunch. After the lunch recess, the counsel has not appeared.The first appellant, however, is present and he submits that, on legal advicereceived, and on instruction of co-appellant, he wants to withdraw theappeal.
Given this submission by the first appellant, the appeal is dismissed aswithdrawn.
The lower court be returned with the copy of this judgment.
R.K.GAUBA, J
JANUARY 21, 2016VLD