Dharam Deo Narayan Singh Vs. the State of Jharkhand and anr. - 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. the appellant calls in question the correctness or otherwise of the judgment and order passed in l.p.a. no. 257 of 2003 dated 3/10.8.2004 and the order passed in civil review no. 100 of 2004 dated 4/6.12.2005.3. the appellant aggrieved by the rejection of the claim by the learned single judge in counting the service rendered by him earlier in the co-operative institution, had filed letter patent appeal before the high court of jharkhand at ranchi in l.p.a. no. 257 of 2003. by the impugned order dated 3/10.8.2004, the court has rejected the appeal. after such rejection, the appellant had filed review petition no. 100 of 2004. alongwith the petition, the appellant had produced circular instruction issued by the government of india, ministry of human resources development, department of education, new delhi and other documents, which according to him, would support his claim made before the authorities and also before the court.4. the review petition was rejected by the court on the ground that there was no error apparent on the face of the record and, therefore, review of the order passed in l.p.a. no. 257 of 2003 was not called for.5. the grievance of the appellant and his counsel before us, is that; if the documents produced by the appellant had been considered by the court, it would have certainly helped the appellant to claim higher pensionary benefits.6. the learned counsel for the respondents justifies the impugned order.7. having considered the rival claims of the parties, in our view, in order to do complete justice, we deem it proper to set aside the order passed by the high court in civil review petition without going into niceties of order 47 rule 1 of code of civil procedure.8. accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the high court in civil review petition no. 100 of 2004 dated 4/6.12.2005 and direct the high court to reconsider the review petition filed by the appellant by taking on record the circulars and other documents filed along with the review petition as expeditiously as possible within an outer limit of six months. we hasten to add, we have not expressed anything on the merits of the claim of the appellant. the appeal is disposed of accordingly. no order as to costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant calls in question the correctness or otherwise of the judgment and order passed in L.P.A. No. 257 of 2003 dated 3/10.8.2004 and the order passed in Civil Review No. 100 of 2004 dated 4/6.12.2005.

3. The appellant aggrieved by the rejection of the claim by the learned Single Judge in counting the service rendered by him earlier in the co-operative institution, had filed Letter Patent Appeal before the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in L.P.A. No. 257 of 2003. By the impugned order dated 3/10.8.2004, the court has rejected the appeal. After such rejection, the appellant had filed Review Petition No. 100 of 2004. Alongwith the Petition, the appellant had produced circular instruction issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Education, New Delhi and other documents, which according to him, would support his claim made before the authorities and also before the court.

4. The Review Petition was rejected by the court on the ground that there was no error apparent on the face of the record and, therefore, review of the order passed in L.P.A. No. 257 of 2003 was not called for.

5. The grievance of the appellant and his counsel before us, is that; if the documents produced by the appellant had been considered by the court, it would have certainly helped the appellant to claim higher pensionary benefits.

6. The learned Counsel for the respondents justifies the impugned order.

7. Having considered the rival claims of the parties, in our view, in order to do complete justice, we deem it proper to set aside the order passed by the High Court in Civil Review Petition without going into niceties of order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure.

8. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the High Court in Civil Review Petition No. 100 of 2004 dated 4/6.12.2005 and direct the High Court to reconsider the Review Petition filed by the appellant by taking on record the circulars and other documents filed along with the Review Petition as expeditiously as possible within an outer limit of six months. We hasten to add, we have not expressed anything on the merits of the claim of the appellant. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.