Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jyotsna Sarkar 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. order1. this appeal is at the instance of the insurance company against the impugned judgment of the high court dated 2/1/2001 dismissing the appeal filed by the insurance company in limine at the admission stage itself. the only grievance made by learned counsel for the appellant is that in view of the observations recorded by the tribunal in its award dated 23/2/2000, it appears the licence of the driver of the vehicle had not been issued by the dto kamrup and as such the licence produced by the driver was a fake one. he has accordingly prayed that in this situation the owner of the vehicle be directed to reimburse the sum awarded to the claimant which has admittedly been paid in the meanwhile. notices have been issued to the owner- respondent no. 2 and he has not put in appearance, though served. the record also discloses that he had not appeared before the tribunal as well and that he had been proceeded against ex-parte.2. in this view of the matter, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order of the high court dated 2/1/2001 and direct that it will be open to the appellant insurance company to recover the compensation money from the owner of the vehicle, respondent no. 2. there will be no order as to costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. This appeal is at the instance of the Insurance company against the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 2/1/2001 dismissing the appeal filed by the Insurance company in limine at the admission stage itself. The only grievance made by learned Counsel for the appellant is that in view of the observations recorded by the tribunal in its award dated 23/2/2000, it appears the licence of the driver of the vehicle had not been issued by the DTO Kamrup and as such the licence produced by the driver was a fake one. He has accordingly prayed that in this situation the owner of the vehicle be directed to reimburse the sum awarded to the claimant which has admittedly been paid in the meanwhile. Notices have been issued to the owner- respondent No. 2 and he has not put in appearance, though served. The record also discloses that he had not appeared before the tribunal as well and that he had been proceeded against ex-parte.

2. In this view of the matter, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 2/1/2001 and direct that it will be open to the appellant Insurance company to recover the compensation money from the owner of the vehicle, respondent No. 2. There will be no order as to costs.