State of Haryana and ors. Vs. Satyender Kumar - 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. this appeal is directed against the order of the high court of punjab & haryana dated 7/12/1999 in which a direction had been issued that the services of the petitioner/respondent before us be continued till regular appointees are appointed. the respondent had been appointed on contract basis and his service was terminable at any time without notice.2. notice was issued in this case on 13/8/2001. the respondent was served but has not put in appearance. it appears that in some connected cases, this court had stayed the order of the high court in similar matters. it is possible, therefore, that the respondent, who was on contract basis, would have been relieved by now and it is this reason that he has not put in appearance despite notice. we are also disinclined to adjourn the appeal, as it pertains to the year 2002.3. we, accordingly, allow this appeal, set aside the order of the high court and dismiss the writ petition. no order as to costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. This appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana dated 7/12/1999 in which a direction had been issued that the services of the petitioner/respondent before us be continued till regular appointees are appointed. The respondent had been appointed on contract basis and his service was terminable at any time without notice.

2. Notice was issued in this case on 13/8/2001. The respondent was served but has not put in appearance. It appears that in some connected cases, this Court had stayed the order of the High Court in similar matters. It is possible, therefore, that the respondent, who was on contract basis, would have been relieved by now and it is this reason that he has not put in appearance despite notice. We are also disinclined to adjourn the appeal, as it pertains to the year 2002.

3. We, accordingly, allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and dismiss the writ petition. No order as to costs.