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

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

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)