P. Shailaja and ors. Vs. M. Narender Reddy 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. 1. we have heard learned counsel for the parties.2. we observe from the impugned order of the high court dated 29/9/2006 that the hon'ble judge has given findings that the arbitration agreement was not legally valid, that the claim was stale and time barred. we are of the opinion that these findings are on the merits of the case and it was not open to the court to decide this issue as these matters were to be left for the decision of the arbitrator.3. in this view of the mater, we are of the opinion that the impugned order has to be set aside. it is, accordingly, set aside. we also request hon'ble mr. justice b.p. jeevan reddy, a retired judge of this court, to be the sole arbitrator to settle the disputes between the parties. we clarify that the expenses for the arbitration will be borne by the appellant. we further request the arbitrator to take a decision in the matter as expeditiously as possible. all contentions including the question of limitation and as to the stale nature of the claim will be open before the arbitrator.4. the appeal is allowed in the above terms. no costs.