National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. and ors. Vs. V.P. Gupta and anr. - 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. leave granted.2. this appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 22nd january, 2008 passed by the punjab and haryana high court in civil writ petition no. 10758 of 2006 filed by the respondent herein. the high court allowing the writ petition and setting aside the orders passed by the authorities, directed that the writ petitioner would be entitled to all the consequential benefits as a result of setting aside of the order of removal passed against him. high court had granted full backwages to him. it has been submitted before us that other service benefits, which he is entitled for after retirement, have already been given.3. in that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that only order that can be passed in this appeal is to modify the backwages granted to the respondent. accordingly, we modify the impugned order and direct to pay 30 per cent of the backwages to the respondent.4. the appeal is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs. interim order granted by this court stands vacated.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 22nd January, 2008 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 10758 of 2006 filed by the respondent herein. The High Court allowing the writ petition and setting aside the orders passed by the authorities, directed that the writ petitioner would be entitled to all the consequential benefits as a result of setting aside of the order of removal passed against him. High Court had granted full backwages to him. It has been submitted before us that other service benefits, which he is entitled for after retirement, have already been given.

3. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that only order that can be passed in this appeal is to modify the backwages granted to the respondent. Accordingly, we modify the impugned order and direct to pay 30 per cent of the backwages to the respondent.

4. The appeal is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs. Interim order granted by this Court stands vacated.