Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: multiplier method in Sh. Mahipal Singh vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 5 May, 2022Matching Fragments
"13. The plaintiff is entitled to just compensation under Sections 1A and 2 of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1885 which has to be computed according to the multiplier method. Reference may be made to Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v. Veluswami, 1962 (1) SCR 929, Dr. Laxman Balkrishna Joshi v. Dr. Trimbak Bapu Godbole, AIR 1969 SC 128, Ishwar Devi Malik. v. Union of India, ILR (1968) 1 Delhi 59, Lachman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur, AIR 1979 P&H 50, Bir Singh v. Hashi Rashi Banerjee, AIR 1956 Calcutta 555. The multiplier method has been accepted as legally sound method for determining compensation in death cases by the Supreme Court in Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, (2001) 8 SCC 197; Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, AIR 2012 SC 100 and Delhi High Court in Jaipur Golden Gas Victims Association v. Union of India, 164 (2009) DLT 346; Nagrik Sangarsh Samiti v. Union of India, ILR (2010) 4 Delhi 293; Ram Kishore v. MCD, 2007 (97) DRJ 445; Ashok Sharma v. Union of India, 2009 ACJ MAHIPAL SINGH v. THE STATE AND ANR.
1063.
14. In Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (supra), a fire broke out in a factory in which sixty people died and one hundred and thirteen got injured. The Supreme Court awarded compensation to the victims on the basis of the multiplier method.
15. In Jaipur Golden Gas Victims Association v. Union of India (supra), the Division Bench of this Court awarded compensation to the victims of Jaipur Golden Fire Tragedy by applying the multiplier method.
16. In Ashok Sharma v. Union of India (supra), six children lost their lives by drowning during an annual training camp of NCC on account of negligence on the part of respondents. The compensation was awarded by applying the multiplier method.
17. The compensation in death cases according to the multiplier method is based on the pecuniary loss caused to the dependents by the death of the victim of the road accident. The dependency of the dependents is determined by taking the annual earnings of the deceased at the time of the accident. Thereafter, the effect is given to the future prospects of the deceased. After the income of the deceased is established, the deduction is made towards the personal expenses of the deceased which he would have spent on himself. If the deceased was unmarried, normally 50% of the income is deducted towards his personal expenses. If the deceased was married and leaves behind two to three dependents, 1/3rd deduction is made; if the deceased has left behind four to six family members, deduction of 1/4th of his income is made and where the number of dependent family members exceeds six, the deduction of 1/5th of the income is made. The remaining amount of income after deduction of personal expenses is taken to be the loss of dependency to the family members which is multiplied by 12 to determine the annual loss of dependency. The annual loss of dependency of the dependants of the deceased is multiplied by the multiplier according to the age of the deceased or claimant whichever is higher. A table of multiplier is given in ScheduleII of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 but there was some error in the said table which has been corrected by the Supreme Court in the judgment of Sarla Verma v. DTC, 2009 ACJ 1298."
34. In Urmila Devi v. MCD; 2017 AAC 184, where there was no proof of income of the deceased who has died after falling into sewer because of MAHIPAL SINGH v. THE STATE AND ANR.
the negligence of the MCD/respondents, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court for the award of compensation has considered the minimum wages notified by the Government National Capital Territory of Delhi (Labour Department) and the multiplier method. This Court also has no reason not to follow the criteria of minimum wages and multiplier method in the present case.