Mohinder Singh Vs. Jai Kaur and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- motor vehicles act (59 of 1988)section 168: [dr.arijit pasayat & asok kumar ganguly,jj] compensation - multiplier method held, it involves ascertainment of loss of dependency or multiplicand. choice of multiplier is determined by age of deceased and by calculation as to what capital sum would yield the multiplicand by way of annual interest. section 168: [dr.arijit pasayat & asok kumar ganguly,jj] compensation determination - deceased riding scooter died in accident with bus - he was aged 43 years and earning rs. 12000/-p.m. as contractor applying multiplier of 10 and making 1/3rd deduction claimants would be entitled to compensation of rs.2,40,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. section 168 :[dr.arijit pasayat & asok kumar ganguly,jj] compensation multiplier method held, the multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalising 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. deceased aged 43 years at time of accident and was hawker. multiplier of 10 and rate of interest @ 6% p.a. would be appropriate and not multiplier of 15 and interest rate @ 9% p.a. fixed by high court. compensation was determined at rs.2,00,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. order1. leave granted.2. in this appeal, the appellant has questioned the judgment of the punjab & haryana high court, by which the second appeal was allowed without framing any substantial question of law, as required under section 100 c.p.c.3. having regard to the above, we dispose of the appeal and set aside the judgment and order passed by the high court and remit the matter to the high court for a fresh decision after framing of substantial questions of law.4. there will be no order as to costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. In this appeal, the appellant has questioned the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, by which the Second Appeal was allowed without framing any substantial question of law, as required under Section 100 C.P.C.

3. Having regard to the above, we dispose of the appeal and set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court and remit the matter to the High Court for a fresh decision after framing of substantial questions of law.

4. There will be no order as to costs.