Ashok Thapar Vs. Supreme Indosaigon Associates 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. heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.2. in spite of service of notice, nobody has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents to contest the prayer made in this appeal.3. by the impugned order, the national consumer disputes redressal commission [for short 'the national commission'], after declining the appellant's prayer for permission to file a petition for amendment of the complaint, proceeded to dismiss the same. in our view, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the national commission should have, instead of dismissing the complaint at the admission stage, granted time to the appellant to file a petition for amendment of the complaint.4. accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the national commission, which shall now give opportunity to the appellant to file a petition for amendment of the complaint and, thereafter, proceed to decide the same in accordance with law.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.

2. In spite of service of notice, nobody has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents to contest the prayer made in this appeal.

3. By the impugned order, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [for short 'the National Commission'], after declining the appellant's prayer for permission to file a petition for amendment of the complaint, proceeded to dismiss the same. In our view, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the National Commission should have, instead of dismissing the complaint at the admission stage, granted time to the appellant to file a petition for amendment of the complaint.

4. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the National Commission, which shall now give opportunity to the appellant to file a petition for amendment of the complaint and, thereafter, proceed to decide the same in accordance with law.