Appellants filed an appeal seeking enhancement in compensation awarded for the death of their six-year-old child. The court examined the relied-upon Supreme Court judgment regarding notional income and compensation for children, found no merit in the claim, and dismissed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
���������������������������������������� ��������������
��������������������
Date of decision: 1st July, 2014
Chandni Devi and another
� Appellants
Versus
Balwant Singh and others
� Respondents
������������� ��������!�������"�!��"����������
Present: Mr. Rajesh Bansal, Advocate for the appellants.
��"�!��"���������#����$��� %
This is claimants’ appeal seeking enhancement in the compensation granted vide impugned award dated 31.10.2013 for the death of their child, who was six years of age at the time of accident.
Admittedly, a sum of �3.30 lakh has been awarded to the appellants as compensation for the death of their child aged about six years.
Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in **&"'()+���,-�+.� +�/)01�2�� -�+.��/)01(��* 2013(4) RCR (Civil) 276 to contend that
Singh Rattan Pal 2014.07.07 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court
2
������������������
notional income of the child should have been taken at �30,000 per annum instead of �15,000 per annum as taken in the instant case by the Tribunal vide impugned award. However, a perusal of the judgment rendered in "'()+���,-�(�3*(0 (supra), as relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants, would show that in & /�4*.)5*� 2��!/*/0�����')*1�� 2001(4) RCR (Civil) 673, Hon’ble the Supreme Court had observed that compensation amount for the children between the age of 5 to 10 years should be �2.00 lakh.
In view thereof, this Court finds no merit in this appeal.
Dismissed.
$��"�!��"���������%� ������
�6-7��#������ ���
Singh Rattan Pal 2014.07.07 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
&"'()*+���,*-�*+.� *+�/)01�2�� *-*�*+.��/)01(�� 2013(4) RCR (Civil) 276Followed¶18
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Chandni Devi
Balwant Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
