Tukaram Pandurang Matekar Vs. Head Master 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. delay condoned.2. leave granted.3. this appeal is directed against a judgment passed by a learned single judge of the high court of judicature at bombay in second appeal no. 362/89 by which the high court has partly allowed the appeal quantifying the relief claimed by the appellant in the following manner:it is hereby declared that the plaintiff was not a surplus teacher as per g.r. dated 14th march, 1975. the defendants will pay compensation equivalent to three years salary to the plaintiff along with interest thereon at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of institution of suit till the date of payment of the amount. calculation shall be made on the basis of the last drawn salary of the plaintiff on the date of the order declaring him as surplus teacher. 4. having heard learned counsel for the parties and after looking into the records and the judgment of the high court as well as of the courts below, we are of the view that the relief granted by the high court should be suitably modified.5. it is not in dispute that the appellant has already retired in the year 1991. accordingly, keeping this fact in mind, we modify the decree passed by the high court to the extent that the appellant shall be entitled to 50% of salary from the date of institution of the suit till the date of payment. as directed by the high court, calculation shall be made on the basis of last drawn salary of the appellant on the date of order of declaring him as a surplus teacher. with this modification, the appeal is disposed of. there will be no order as to costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. This appeal is directed against a judgment passed by a Learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Second Appeal No. 362/89 by which the High Court has partly allowed the appeal quantifying the relief claimed by the appellant in the following manner:

It is hereby declared that the plaintiff was not a surplus teacher as per G.R. dated 14th March, 1975. The defendants will pay compensation equivalent to three years salary to the plaintiff along with interest thereon at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of institution of suit till the date of payment of the amount. Calculation shall be made on the basis of the last drawn salary of the plaintiff on the date of the order declaring him as surplus teacher.

4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and after looking into the records and the judgment of the High Court as well as of the courts below, we are of the view that the relief granted by the High Court should be suitably modified.

5. It is not in dispute that the appellant has already retired in the year 1991. Accordingly, keeping this fact in mind, we modify the decree passed by the High Court to the extent that the appellant shall be entitled to 50% of salary from the date of institution of the suit till the date of payment. As directed by the High Court, calculation shall be made on the basis of last drawn salary of the appellant on the date of order of declaring him as a surplus teacher. With this modification, the appeal is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.