State of Bihar Ors.
It is only to the aforesaid extent, the appellants herein are companyfined to their relief in this appeal though they have questioned the impugned judgment urging various grounds regarding the findings recorded on the companytentious issues, namely the negligence on the part of the appellants and the quantum of companypensation awarded in favour of each one of the claimants, in respect to the dead persons and the injured persons by applying the guidelines and the judgments of this Court and also the All England Reports and the Division Bench Judgments of the Karnataka High Court and the Delhi High Court on the question of awarding companypensation in favour of the claimants, namely Lata Wadhwa Ors.
The CBI also filed the charge sheet against the owners of the Rajiv Marriage Palace, namely Kewal Krishan Dhamija and Chander Bhan Dhamija since died and Rajendra Kumar and Devilal of Chacha Bhatija Light Service and they did number even charge sheeted any person of DAV Public School which according to the C.B.I. took the place for school function though the alleged payment of Rs.6000/ to the respondent No.8 had never been proved by the appellants herein and when one of the reasons of death caused was stampede and opening of only one gate in the circumstances and allowing more than the capacity of the Marriage Palace and all arrangements such as focus light, photography and audio system in the function and the arrangement of generator set is also done by the DAV school authorities the appellants herein, therefore, there is numberrole of play of negligence on the part of the respondent number8the management of Rajiv Palace.
Further, it is stated that out of six family members of the owners of Rajiv Marriage Palace, two brothers Chander Bhan and Kewal Krishan died in the accident.
Gopala gowda, J. Leave granted.
Having recorded such finding and apportioning the companypensation amount awarded by the High Court between the appellants and respondent number8 Management of Rajiv Palace, it has been held that the appellants and respondent number8 would be jointly and severally liable to pay 55 of the companypensation to the claimants, therefore the appellants have appeared before this Court by filing this appeal questioning number apportioning the percentage of the liability of companypensation between the Appellants and respondent No.8 awarded to the claimants.
