Yogesh Kumar Rai Vs. State of U.P. and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/842088
SubjectCivil
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided OnApr-24-2009
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 2878 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 8727 of 2009)
Judge Tarun Chatterjee and; H.L. Dattu, JJ.
AppellantYogesh Kumar Rai
RespondentState of U.P. and ors.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
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. we find no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.3. the high court has dismissed the second appeal with costs of rs. 3,000/-. the cost part of the judgment is set aside.4. there will be no order as to costs.
Judgment:
ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. We find no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.

3. The High Court has dismissed the Second Appeal with costs of Rs. 3,000/-. The cost part of the judgment is set aside.

4. There will be no order as to costs.