Ajit Singh Vs. State of Punjab - 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 trial court convicted the appellant under section 325 of the indian penal code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of rs. 500/-; in default, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of four months. on appeal being preferred, the high court confirmed the conviction and sentence. hence, this appeal by special leave.3. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant pressed this appeal on the question of sentence and made a prayer that as the appellant has remained in custody for about one year, sentence for imprisonment awarded to him may be reduced to the period already undergone. in our view, the ends of justice would be met in case the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone.4. the appeal is, accordingly, allowed in part. while upholding the conviction of the appellant, sentence of imprisonment awarded to him 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 trial court convicted the appellant under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-; in default, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of four months. On appeal being preferred, the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence. Hence, this appeal by special leave.

3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant pressed this appeal on the question of sentence and made a prayer that as the appellant has remained in custody for about one year, sentence for imprisonment awarded to him may be reduced to the period already undergone. In our view, the ends of justice would be met in case the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone.

4. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed in part. While upholding the conviction of the appellant, sentence of imprisonment awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone. The appellant, who is on bail, is discharged from the liability of bail bonds.