Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

ROOPWATI & ORS. versus RAM KISHAN & ORS.

Decided
14 October 2022
Judges listed
HEMANT GUPTA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[2022] 13 S.C.R. 561 · 2022 INSC 1089

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

This appeal is of the claimants, which arises out of the Impugned Judgment dated 26.09.2018 by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in an appeal against the order of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short, the “Tribunal”) dated 13.05.2013.

p. 562, margin A

2

The accident occurred on 22.11.2010 when the deceased Hari Ram was riding on a three-wheeler with his brother Dev Prasad from Mitrol to Palwal, Haryana. The vehicle was being driven by respondent no. 1, i.e., Ram Kishan and was insured with respondent no. 3 (IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company LTD.). During the journey an accident occurred and the vehicle was toppled which resulted in grievous injuries to the body of Hari Ram. He was taken to the hospital but he succumbed to his injuries on the very next day on 23.11.2010. The claim petition was filed on his behalf by his wife, his son and his mother. The Tribunal was of the opinion that the accident did occur due to the rash and negligent driving by driver of the three-wheeler. The vehicle was insured with respondent no.3 insurance company and the liability was fixed on the insurance company by the Tribunal. The award was made on the following: -

p. 562, margin B

3

The matter was taken in appeal by the High Court which after considering the submissions of the Ram Kishan and respondent no.3 awarded them increased compensation on the opinion that the multiplier should have been thirteen instead of nine and the Tribunal was wrong in not granting any amount towards the future prospects.

p. 563, margin A

4

Therefore, the High Court increased the compensation awarded to Rs. 6,55,000/- with the amount to be given at the 7.5 % interest. The change of multiplier was granted by the High Court as the age of the deceased was wrongly recorded as 60 and was found to be 50 years, based on scientific evidence. The High Court has also increased the rate of interest from 7% to 7.5%.

p. 563, margin B

5

The High Court has correctly awarded the compensation and the order of the High Court needs no interference by this Court. Hence this appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

p. 563, margin C