Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 1 of 1 (0.50 seconds)

National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi on 31 October, 2017

6. Having regard to the material on record and the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, it is noticed that the deceased was aged about 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 PMD, J MACMA.No.605 of 2016 4 56 years at the time of death and therefore, correct multiplier applicable is 9 instead of 8. Therefore, while computing the compensation towards loss of earnings it has to be applied. As per the salary certificate, the gross salary of the deceased for the month of October, 2005 was Rs.20,419/- and except for the statutory deductions and also deduction towards Income Tax, no other deductions need to be considered while arriving at the net salary of the deceased. Since there is a lapse of nearly fifteen years and it is not possible to go back to find out the actual Income Tax liable to be paid by the deceased on his monthly income of those years, it is considered reasonable to adopt a sum of Rs.16,000/- as monthly income of the deceased and the compensation is to be computed accordingly. Further, since the age of deceased was 56 years at the time of accident, 10% has to be added to his earnings as compensation towards loss of future prospects as per the decision rendered in Pranay Sethi's case (referred supra). Apart from above, the 1st claimant/appellant is also entitled for spousal consortium at Rs.40,000/- with 10% PMD, J MACMA.No.605 of 2016 5 increase thereon and claimants No.2 and 3, being the children of deceased, are each also entitled for parental consortium at Rs.40,000/- with 10% increase thereon and claimant No.4, being the mother of deceased, is entitled to the filial consortium at Rs.40,000/- with 10% increase thereon. In addition to the above, the claimants are also entitled to Rs.15,000/- with 10% increase thereon towards funeral expenditure and Rs.15,000/- with 10% increase thereon towards loss of estate. 1/4th of the earnings of the deceased have to be deducted towards personal expenditure. Accordingly, the compensation is enhanced as under.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 9815 - D Misra - Full Document
1