Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 2]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Salochana And Another vs Krishan Lal And Another on 11 April, 2014

Author: K. Kannan

Bench: K. Kannan

            FAO No. 6406 of 2013                                                          1

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                       CHANDIGARH


                                            FAO No. 6406 of 2013 (O&M)
                                            Date of decision: April 11, 2014


            Salochana and another
                                                                            ...Appellants
                                                   Versus
            Krishan Lal and another
                                                                            ...Respondents

            CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN


            1.         Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
            2.         To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
            3.         Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?


            Present:           Mr. RS Mamli, Advocate,
                               for the appellants.


            K. KANNAN, J. (Oral)

This appeal is against the award passed in the application filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, where the income taken was Rs. 3200/-. The grievance is that the Tribunal has not provided adequately for the loss of consortium and loss of love and affection and funeral expenses. There is no scope for breaching Schedule II in a case filed under Section 163-A except to the extent which is judicially accepted in Reshma Kumari Vs. Madan Mohan 2013 (9) SCC 65, where there is a specific disposition by the Supreme Court that in all claims of children less than 15 years, multiplier shall be 15. Even in UPSC Versus Trilok Chandra 1996 (4) SCC 362, the Supreme Court pointed out certain errors in Schedule II, but did not go as far as to script a new provision, but on the other hand, exhorted the legislature to correct the mistake. The disposition of the Singh Prem 2014.04.26 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh FAO No. 6406 of 2013 2 Supreme Court to provide for a higher compensation for loss of love and affection and for loss of consortium have come through petitions under Section 165 read with Section 168 and not under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act. There shall be no judicial adventururirour on anybody's part to re-write the statutory provision to provide for fanciful sums under Section 163-A of the Act.

The appeal is wholly without merit and it is dismissed.

            April 11, 2014                                          (K.KANNAN)
            prem                                                        JUDGE




Singh Prem
2014.04.26 14:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh
             FAO No. 6406 of 2013   3




Singh Prem
2014.04.26 14:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh