Accident case - Deceased Bachelor - Pundit - High court fixed his income as Rs.12,000/- per month - Personal expenses considered as 50% - future income prospects fixed at 50% - as the age of deceased 30 years ,multiplier fixed at 17 - Apex court fixed compensation at Rs.18,36,000.00 - 2015 S.C.MSKLawreports

They are the parents of late Satendra Kumar Jain, aged 30  years,  who  died
in a motor accident on 12.07.2008. He was self-employed as Pandit. He was  a
bachelor. Hence, the claim by the parents

The appellants claimed an amount of  Rs.95,50,000.00.  The  Claims  Tribunal
awarded a total compensation of Rs.6,59,000.00 including loss of  dependency
to the tune of Rs.6,24,000.00 with interest @ 7.5 per cent from the date  of
institution of the petition.
Dissatisfied, appellants  approached  the  High
Court of Delhi in MAC APP. 687/2011 leading to the  impugned  judgment.  The
High Court enhanced the compensation and fixed it  at  Rs.12,61,800.00  with
interest as ordered by the Claims Tribunal.

The High Court fixed the  monthly  income  to  Rs.12,000.00  and  added  30%
towards future prospects relying  on  Santosh  Devi  v.  National  Insurance
Company Limited[1].
50 per cent was deducted  towards  personal  expenditure and a multiplier of 13 was applied.
Still not satisfied, the  claimants  are before this Court.

As far as future prospects are concerned, in Rajesh  and  others  v.  Rajbir
Singh and others[4], a three-Judge Bench of this Court held that in case  of
self-employed persons also, if the deceased victim is below 40 years,  there
must be addition  of  50%  to  the  actual  income  of  the  deceased  while
computing future prospects.
The multiplier, in the case of the age of the  deceased  between  26  to  30
years is 17. There is no dispute or grievance on fixation of monthly  income
as Rs.12,000.00 by the High Court.

Thus,  the  appellants  are  entitled  to  compensation  of  Rs.18,36,000.00
towards loss of dependency, which is calculated as follows –

|Calculation                                             |Total (in Rs.)   |
|?           Rs.12,000/- (Monthly Income)                |18,000.00        |
|                                                        |                 |
|add  [50% of Rs.12,000/-(Future Prospects)]  =          |                 |
|?           50% of [Rs.18,000/- (Deductions)]        =  |9,000.00         |
|? [Rs.9,000/-] multiply by [12(Annual Income)] =        |1,08,000.00      |
|? [Rs.1,08,000/-] multiply by [17(Multiplier)]    =     |18,36,000.00     |

There shall be no change on the amounts awarded by the High Court  on  other
heads or on rate of interest.

The appeal is allowed as above. There shall be no order as to costs.-2015 S.C.MSKLAWREPORTS

Popular posts from this blog

Consumer affairs, food & civil supplies - Bifurcation of fair shop in between two villages - Their lordships held that by itself would not offer justification for the respondents to bifurcate the petitioners fair price shop leaving it completely unviable. If the respondents feel that the essential commodities need to be distributed in the two Villages of Vaddepalli and Kondugaripalle, they can direct the petitioner to arrange such distribution in those Villages on particular days by paying transportation expenses to her.- Writ allowed - 2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports

Sec.20 of C.P.C - Territorial Jurisdiction - suit for recovery of money based on Contract - As per the admitted plaint averments, the office of the defendants is located in Pargi, the offer made by the petitioner was accepted at Pargi, the contract was entered between the petitioner and the respondents at Pargi and the same was executed within the jurisdiction of the Court at Pargi.- Plaint returned with objection - as an after thought added the acceptance of contract was received at Malkajgiri - Trail court returned the plaint to file in proper court - Revision - Their Lordships held that if filing of suit is based on making of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where the offer is accepted and if the suit is based on termination of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where such termination order is received. Admittedly, the suit is based on making of a contract and not on termination of the contract.- dismissed the revision - 2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports