Vedwanti and Ors. v. Rajbir and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Dec 2024FAO/2460/2007

Download

Case brief

from the order text

What is this about?

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT…

A compact analysis

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.

Vedwanti and Ors. Vs Rajbir and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶43

,2/ ��$��$��$��$��A ,1/ ��$��0$��$��$��A ,@/ 5��$��$��0�� $��>��%$��$��A ,=/ <��$�� $��%$��B��A��!��0��$>��0�� #��$��B��$��! ? 52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh². It has granted Rs.25,000 towards funeral expenses, Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of consortium and Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The head relating to loss of care and minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh refers to Santosh Devi, it does not seem to follow the same. The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined on percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000, Rs.40,000 and Rs.15,000 respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable

¶73

�� ��	:��	1��$��%��
"	��0�;��	5�� 7''4!
	<��C��7'D	5��*)'4!�,7'D�� 7''/
&	@��$��%�� �>��$��"47��	5��+7'4!�,"47��&&)'/
7�	��@��0	5��&'� 7'4!�, 6 '>" /
6	��$��$��,")/	5��7�+&�+7'4!�,&'� 7'E")/
)	��=��	5��"+�'''4!
(	<��=>��	5��"+�'''4!
+	��1��$�� ��5��7+�'''4!�>�& ��5��7+�'''4!�>�" <$�$��5��7+�'''4!�>�	5�� ++�'''4!
*	�!��2��!(1 &%��$!&	�%0=+��+=��A�
"'	*�(!:&��.�- -�)@��/ � �$):&�2*	5�� 66�'''4!
""	�&/�&# -��(!:&�	�%0>+>�+=��A� ,+�'(�+7'! �66�'''/

Vedwanti and Ors. v. Rajbir and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

A compact analysis

Case details

Similar cases

Sunny through Pushpa Devi Vs Kuldeep and Others

Murti and Another Vs Binod Paswan and Others

Anita and Ors. Vs Yogesh and Ors.

Jakir Vs Sarab Pal Singh and Anr.

Vedwanti and Ors. v. Rajbir and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

A compact analysis

Case details

Similar cases

Sunny through Pushpa Devi Vs Kuldeep and Others

Murti and Another Vs Binod Paswan and Others

Anita and Ors. Vs Yogesh and Ors.

Jakir Vs Sarab Pal Singh and Anr.

Devender @ Dharmender Vs Haryana Roadways and Ors.

Manoj Kumar Vs Haryana Roadways and Ors.