Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Rishi Lal Chawla - 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. the appeals are dismissed for non-prosecution.2. the matters were called out for hearing yesterday when a request for adjournment was made by the counsel appearing for ms. reena singh, advocate on the ground that she was in personal difficulty. the request for adjournment was declined but the matter was passed over to enable the counsel to inform ms. singh about our order. somehow the matters could not be taken up yesterday and have now been called out for hearing. again the same counsel makes prayer for adjournment. we have declined the prayer. we have requested the counsel to argue, but he has expressed his inability to do so. under the circumstances we have no option but to dismiss the appeals for non-prosecution.3. ordered accordingly.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. The appeals are dismissed for non-prosecution.

2. The matters were called out for hearing yesterday when a request for adjournment was made by the counsel appearing for Ms. Reena Singh, Advocate on the ground that she was in personal difficulty. The request for adjournment was declined but the matter was passed over to enable the counsel to inform Ms. Singh about our order. Somehow the matters could not be taken up yesterday and have now been called out for hearing. Again the same counsel makes prayer for adjournment. We have declined the prayer. We have requested the counsel to argue, but he has expressed his inability to do so. Under the circumstances we have no option but to dismiss the appeals for non-prosecution.

3. Ordered accordingly.