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

Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - permission of court for selling minor property by natural guardian- In the present case, though it is stated that the property has been sold for the proper benefit of the minors, their protection, education and marriage,there is nothing on record to suggest that previous permission of the Court was obtained by the natural guardian before transfer by sale in question.-2015 S.C.(2013) MSKLAWREPORTS24

Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 deals with the powers of natural guardian of a Hindu minor and the said section mandates that the natural guardian has power to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or for the realisation, protection or benefit of the minor's estate, etc. The provision reads as follows: Sec. 8 . Powers of natural guardian.- (1) The natural guardian of a Hindu minor has power, subject to the provisions of this section, to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or for the realization, protection or benefit of the minor's estate; but the guardian can in no case bind the minor by a personal covenant. (2) The natural guardian shall not, without the previous permission of the court,- (a) mortgage or charge, or transfer by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise any part of the immovable property of the minor; or (b) lease any part of such pro...
Read more

Court fee - Sec.34 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act - partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it did not insist on payment of ad-valorem Court-fee, on such items. It, however, took a different view, as regards the movable properties. Neither from the plaint, nor from the endorsement made by the trial Court, it is found that there is any distinction, as to the nature of rights claimed, in respect of Plaint-A Schedule properties, on the one hand, and Plaint-B schedule properties, on the other hand. In fact, the nature and incidence of possession, of an immovable property, gives rise to, relatively greater consequences of law, than the possession of an item of movable property. The possession of an item of immovable property can be said to be more assertive, firm and lasting, than the one, of movable property. The endorsement made by the trial Court cannot be sustained, either on law, or on facts. 2015 A.P.(2006)MSKLAWREPORTS

partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it...
Read more

Court Fee - whether on refund of advance money or on entire sale agreement consideration - Specific performance of contract - suppression of material facts(previous litigations on the property) - contract rescinded - suit filed for refund of money - court fee is to be paid on refund claimed amount but not on entire sale agreement consideration = 2015 CHENNAI(2013) MSKLAWREPORTS

it is clear that seeking relief of specific performance of the contract is different from seeking return of advance amount. It has been held that if a suit is filed without seeking specific performance of contract, but only for return of advance amount paid, subsequently, the plaint cannot be amended. 16. As per the pleadings of the plaint, the suit was filed by the petitioner / plaintiff, stating that the respondent / defendant had suppressed the pendency of various litigations, in respect of the property, which is the subject matter of the agreement for sale, hence, he rescind the contract and demanded the respondent for return of the advance amount.  At this stage, the Court below cannot go into the merits of the case for deciding the Court fees payable. The Court below has to consider the pleadings of the petitioner / plaintiff. As per the averments made by the petitioner / plaintiff, the respondent / defendant had suppressed the pending litigation, in respec...
Read more