Motor Accident Claims - Deceased aged 22 - young job holder - he would have serve for 35 years - there is every possibility of increase of his income up to 100% - it should be taken into consideration while fixing accident compensation - in one case the Apex court held that "High Court determined the compensation by granting 100% increase in the income of the deceased. Taking into consideration the fact that in the normal course, the deceased would have served for 22 years and during that period his salary would have certainly doubled, upheld the judgment of the High Court...." in this case the apex court viewed that the courts below have erred in taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.11,146/- p.m. From the facts, circumstances and evidence on record, it is clear that the deceased was 27 years of age, working with HDFC as the Manager earning Rs.1,81,860/- per annum (i.e. Rs.15,155/- p.m.) and there were definite chances of his further promotion and consequent increase in salary by way of periodical revision of the salary on the basis of cost of living Index prevalent in the area if he would alive and worked in the bank. Therefore, adding 50% under the head of future prospects to the annual income of the deceased according to the principle laid down in the case of Vimal Kanwar & Ors. (supra), the total loss of income comes to Rs.2,72,790/- per annum [Rs. 1,81,860 + (1/2 * Rs.1,81,860)]. Deducting 10% tax (Rs.27,279/-), net annual income comes to Rs.2,45,511/-. Deducting 1/3rd [Rs.81,837] towards personal expenses since the claimants are the parents of the deceased, loss of dependency comes to 1,63,674 X 11(appropriate multiplier as per the age of the parent) Rs. 18,00,414/-. -2015SC msklawreport

Motor Accident Claims - Deceased aged 22 - young job holder - he would have serve for 35 years - there is every possibility of increase of his income up to 100% - it should be taken into consideration while fixing accident compensation - 
in one case the Apex court held that
"High  Court
determined the compensation by granting 100% increase in the income  of  the
deceased. Taking into consideration the fact that in the normal course,  the
deceased would have served for 22 years and during that  period  his  salary
would have certainly doubled, upheld the judgment of the High Court...." 
 in this case the apex court viewed that
the courts below have erred in taking the monthly income of the deceased  at
Rs.11,146/- p.m. From the facts, circumstances and evidence  on  record,  it
is clear that the deceased was 27 years of age, working  with  HDFC  as  the
Manager earning Rs.1,81,860/- per annum (i.e. Rs.15,155/-  p.m.)  and  there
were definite chances of his further promotion and  consequent  increase  in
salary by way of periodical revision of the salary on the basis of  cost  of
living Index prevalent in the area if he  would  alive  and  worked  in  the
bank. Therefore, adding 50% under  the  head  of  future  prospects  to  the
annual income of the deceased according to the principle laid  down  in  the
case of Vimal Kanwar & Ors. (supra), the  total  loss  of  income  comes  to
Rs.2,72,790/- per  annum          [Rs.  1,81,860  +  (1/2  *  Rs.1,81,860)].
Deducting 10% tax (Rs.27,279/-), net annual income comes  to  Rs.2,45,511/-.
Deducting 1/3rd [Rs.81,837] towards personal expenses  since  the  claimants
are the parents of the deceased, loss of dependency  comes  to  1,63,674   X
11(appropriate multiplier as per the age of the parent) Rs. 18,00,414/-. -2015SC msklawreport

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