Shenthamizh Kizhar Vs. Government Pleader, Madras - 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. heard learned counsel for the parties.2. the sole appellant was convicted by the high court under section 12 of the contempt of courts act, 1971, and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of rupees two thousand; in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of two months. hence, this appeal. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant stated that in terms of the direction given by the high court, the appellant has deposited the amount of fine. learned counsel then submitted that as the appellant has already remained in jail for five months, the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him may be reduced to the period already undergone.3. having taken into consideration all the pros and cons of the matter, we are of the view that ends of justice would be met in case the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone.4. accordingly, the appeal is allowed in-part and while upholding the conviction of the appellant, sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone. the appellant, who is on bail, is discharged from the liability of bail bonds.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The sole appellant was convicted by the High Court under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rupees two thousand; in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of two months. Hence, this appeal. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant stated that in terms of the direction given by the High Court, the appellant has deposited the amount of fine. Learned Counsel then submitted that as the appellant has already remained in jail for five months, the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him may be reduced to the period already undergone.

3. Having taken into consideration all the pros and cons of the matter, we are of the view that ends of justice would be met in case the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone.

4. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in-part and while upholding the conviction of the appellant, sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone. The appellant, who is on bail, is discharged from the liability of bail bonds.