9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 902X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S.B. Sinha, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Appellant is before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 29.05.2007 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No.2041 of 2006 whereby and whereunder a First Appeal preferred by the appellant herein against a judgment and award dated 03.2.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak directing the appellant herein to pay compensation with interest to the respondent, was dismissed. 3. One Joginder Singh, husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent Nos. 2 to 4, while riding a two wheeler met with an accident on 29.11.2003 as it collided with a truck. The said truck was insured with the appellant b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. The deceased was occupying the post of Technical in a Weld Shop Work in Maruti Udyog Limited. His net salary was ₹ 16,110/- per month. Both the courts below, however, in terms of the evidences brought on record found salary payable to the deceased at ₹ 17,244.95 per month. This finding of the Tribunal had not been questioned before the High Court. Indisputably, again the age of the deceased at the time of death was found to be 41 years 10 months and 9 days. 9. It has not been denied or disputed that the multiplier method can be applied for the purpose of determination of the amount of compensation in a motor accident in terms of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. We have, however, do not mean to suggest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions sometimes, no principle of law has been laid down. It is, however, accepted at the Bar that the multiplier specified in the Second Schedule should be taken to be the guidelines. 11. We may notice a few precedents in this behalf. In Rani Gupta (supra), it is stated : 18. By and large, therefore, the Court had proceeded on the basis that the multiplier mentioned in the Second Schedule should be taken to be the guide but it may not be. 19. The multiplier specified in the Second Schedule may not be decisive for calculating compensation in cases of death. In fact, the word multiplier has been used only for the purpose of calculating damages in the case of permanent disability and not in the case of death as would appear from note ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 362], the multiplier appears to have been adopted by this Court taking note of the prevalent banking rate of interest. 12. In fact in Trilok Chand's case (supra), after reference to Second Schedule to the Act, it was noticed that the same suffers from many defects. It was pointed out that the same is to serve as a guide, but cannot be said to be invariable ready reckoner. However, the appropriate highest multiplier was held to be 18. The highest multiplier has to be for the age group of 21 years to 25 years when an ordinary Indian Citizen starts independently earning and the lowest would be in respect of a person in the age group of 60 to 70, which is the normal retirement age. 13. Keeping in view the parameters indicated above i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants whichever is higher) and by the calculation as to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the multiplicand by way of annual interest. In ascertaining this, regard should also be had to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed-up over the period for which the dependency is expected to last. 14. The amount of compensation which is required to be determined by the Tribunal must be just. In certain situations as for example in the case of the death of only son to a mother, no monetary compensation would be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmore, the amount of compensation should be just and fair in the facts and circumstances of each case. In this case, the deceased was a technician employed in a Multinational company. The Tribunal as also the High Court while determining the amount of compensation did not bestow its consideration to future prospects. It is trite that the Court should look into the circumstances of each and every case for arriving at a just compensation. His future prospect has not been taken into consideration. In case of this nature, therefore, we do not think that application of multiplier of 16 was on a higher side. 16. Submission of Mr. Agarwal that the Court should have awarded only the sum claimed by the claimant, in our opinion, is not correct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
