Anita Yadav Vs. Manas Roy 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. leave granted.2. these appeals are directed against the orders dated 16th july, 2007 and 17th september, 2007 passed by the delhi high court in writ petition (crl.) 651/2007, which was a habeas corpus petition. pursuant to notice served on the father of the appellant herein, the appellant appeared before the high court in the habeas corpus proceedings and personally informed the court that she was not willing to go back to the respondent no. 1 herein and that she wished to stay with her parents.3. at that point of time, the parties in the habeas corpus petition were served and there was no further reason to continue to proceed with the writ petition. however, despite the above, the high court on 17th september, 2007 directed the father of the appellant to be present along with the appellant before the court on certain allegations made by the respondent no. 1 herein that she was married to him.4. we fail to understand how in a habeas corpus petition, such a direction could have been given since the appellant had already appeared and had made her preference known and had also filed an affidavit in which the case of the appellant was supported.5. in that view of the matter, the appeals are allowed and the impugned orders of the high court are set aside.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against the orders dated 16th July, 2007 and 17th September, 2007 passed by the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (Crl.) 651/2007, which was a Habeas Corpus petition. Pursuant to notice served on the father of the appellant herein, the appellant appeared before the High Court in the Habeas Corpus proceedings and personally informed the court that she was not willing to go back to the respondent No. 1 herein and that she wished to stay with her parents.

3. At that point of time, the parties in the Habeas Corpus petition were served and there was no further reason to continue to proceed with the writ petition. However, despite the above, the High Court on 17th September, 2007 directed the father of the appellant to be present along with the appellant before the court on certain allegations made by the respondent No. 1 herein that she was married to him.

4. We fail to understand how in a Habeas Corpus petition, such a direction could have been given since the appellant had already appeared and had made her preference known and had also filed an affidavit in which the case of the appellant was supported.

5. In that view of the matter, the appeals are allowed and the impugned orders of the High Court are set aside.