T. Jayaraman Vs. State of Tamil Nadu - 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 appellant in this appeal was convicted by the trial court under section 7 of the prevention of corruption act, 1988, [for short, `the act'] and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of rupees five hundred; in default, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of three months. he was also convicted under section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of rupees five hundred; in default, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of three months. the appellant was then convicted under section 12 of the act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of rupees five hundred; in default to undergo further imprisonment for a period of three months. all the sentences, however, were ordered to run concurrently. the appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed by the high court. hence, this appeal by special leave.2. we have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. the trial court convicted the appellant upon threadbare evaluation of evidence. the high court independently scrutinized the evidence and expressed its unequivocal agreement with the trial court. the findings recorded by the trial court and high court do not suffer from any perversity warranting interference by this court.3. the appeal, accordingly, fails and the same is dismissed.4. the bail bonds of the appellant, who is on bail, are cancelled and is directed to be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remaining period of sentence.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. The appellant in this appeal was convicted by the trial court under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, [for short, `the Act'] and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of rupees five hundred; in default, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of three months. He was also convicted under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of rupees five hundred; in default, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of three months. The appellant was then convicted under Section 12 of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of rupees five hundred; in default to undergo further imprisonment for a period of three months. All the sentences, however, were ordered to run concurrently. The appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court. Hence, this appeal by special leave.

2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. The trial court convicted the appellant upon threadbare evaluation of evidence. The High Court independently scrutinized the evidence and expressed its unequivocal agreement with the trial court. The findings recorded by the trial court and High Court do not suffer from any perversity warranting interference by this Court.

3. The appeal, accordingly, fails and the same is dismissed.

4. The bail bonds of the appellant, who is on bail, are cancelled and is directed to be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remaining period of sentence.