islam Mondal and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal 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. delay condoned.2. leave granted.3. the matter was heard by us on the interlocutory application seeking interim direction by the state of west bengal, respondent and also on merits of the appeal.4. so far as appeal is concerned, we find that the order impugned in this appeal is non-descriptive and passed without application of mind. the impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the writ petition is resotred to its original number, which was moved by the petitioners against the order of the administrative tribunal passed in an original application being oa-4130/1998. high court is requested to dispose of the writ petition afresh at an early date without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.5. so far as interim application being i.a. no. 2 of 2009 is concerned, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that without going into the merits and without affecting the rights of the appellants, it would be open for the state of west bengal to fill up 61 posts keeping six posts vacant till the disposal of the aforesaid writ petition by the high court.6. the interlocutory application and the appeal is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. The matter was heard by us on the interlocutory application seeking interim direction by the State of West Bengal, respondent and also on merits of the appeal.

4. So far as appeal is concerned, we find that the order impugned in this appeal is non-descriptive and passed without application of mind. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the writ petition is resotred to its original number, which was moved by the petitioners against the order of the Administrative Tribunal passed in an original application being OA-4130/1998. High Court is requested to dispose of the writ petition afresh at an early date without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

5. So far as interim application being I.A. No. 2 of 2009 is concerned, after hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that without going into the merits and without affecting the rights of the appellants, it would be open for the State of West Bengal to fill up 61 posts keeping six posts vacant till the disposal of the aforesaid writ petition by the High Court.

6. The interlocutory application and the appeal is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.