Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: multiplier method in Smt. Ved Mati Dubey vs Pradeep Dubey on 24 June, 2025Matching Fragments
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arun Kumar Agrawal (supra) in paragraph 11 has held as under:-
under:
"11. In Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas [(1994) 2 SCC 176 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 335] this Court considered the legitimacy of the multiplier method evolved and applied by the British courts and approved the same. The relevant paragraphs of that judgment are extracted below: (SCC pp. 182-83182 83 & 185, paras 9-10, 9 13 & 16) "9.. The assessment of damages damages to compensate the dependants is beset with difficulties because from the nature of things, it has to take into account many imponderables e.g. the life expectancy of the deceased and the dependants, the amount that the deceased would have earned during during the remainder of his life, the amount that he would have contributed to the dependants during that period, the chances that the deceased may not have lived or the dependants may not live up to the estimated remaining period of their life expectancy, the th chances that the deceased might have got better employment or income or might have lost his employment or income altogether.
*** NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27367 JBP:27367 No.278 and No.278
13.. 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 consumed-up over the period for which the dependency is expected to last.
***
16. It is necessary to reiterate that the multiplier method is logically sound and legally well established. There are some cases which have proceeded to determine the compensation on the basis of aggregating the entire future earnings for over the period the life expectancy was lost, deducted a percentage therefrom towards uncertainties of future life and award the resulting sum as compensation. This is clearly unscientific.
one fourth is deducted therefrom towards the uncertainties of future life and for immediate lump sum payment, the effective multiplier would be between 30 and 34. This is wholly impermissible. We are aware that some decisions of the High Courts and of this Court as well have arrived at compensation ion on some such basis. These decisions cannot be said to have laid down a settled principle. They are merely instances of particular NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27367 JBP:27367 No.278 and No.278 awards in individual cases. The proper method of computation is the multiplier method. Any departure, except in exceptiona exceptionall and extraordinary cases, would introduce inconsistency of principle, lack of uniformity and an element of unpredictability for the assessment of compensation. Some judgments of the High Courts have justified a departure from the multiplier method on the ground that Section 110-B B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 insofar as it envisages the compensation to be 'just', the statutory determination of a 'just' compensation would unshackle the exercise from any rigid formula. It must be borne in mind that the multiplier multiplier method is the accepted method of ensuring a 'just' compensation which will make for uniformity and certainty of the awards. We disapprove these decisions of the High Courts which have taken a contrary view. We indicate that the multiplier method is the appropriate method, a departure from which can only be justified in rare and extraordinary circumstances and very exceptional cases."