Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.16 seconds)The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C vs Susamma Thomas on 6 January, 1993
11. The Apex Court in a recent decision in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas 1994 ACJ 1 (SC), has laid down certain procedures which the Claims Tribunal is required to follow. The Supreme Court has reiterated once more that the multiplier method is logically sound and legally well established. In the aforesaid decision their Lordships have held that the multiplier represents the number of years' purchase on which the loss of dependency is capitalized. On the basis of the guidelines given in the reported decision, in the instant case, in my opinion, the amount of compensation should be calculated taking into account the admitted salary of the deceased, i.e., Rs. 1,100/- per month deducting 1/3rd of the gross income towards his personal living expenses and the balance should be treated as the amount likely to have been spent on the members of the family and the dependants which will come approximately to Rs. 740/- per month or Rs. 8,880 per year as the loss of dependency. This amount of Rs. 8,880/- can be taken to be a round figure of Rs. 9,000/- per year. If a total sum of Rs. 85,000/- is kept in a fixed deposit account at the rate of 12 per cent interest per annum, the claimants-dependants will get the same amount which the deceased used to spend on them. To this amount may be added award for loss of consortium and the loss of estate, each comes to Rs. 15,000/-. The total amount thus comes to Rs. 1,00,000/-which in view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court the claimants are entitled to get.
Mangilal vs Pramod And Anr. on 8 January, 1988
10. Having noticed the submissions of the learned counsel, I am of the view that because the deceased driver was an employee/workman under respondent No. 3 and the claimants could have filed a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act, it does not seem very reasonable that when a Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act entertains the claim petition, the Tribunal was bound to assess the compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. My aforesaid view is supported by the decisions in Mangilal v. Pramod 1988 ACJ 307 (MP) and Ayisha Beevi v. Kalidasan 1987 ACJ 584 (Kerala).
C.N.M. Avisha Beevi vs Edathil Parambil Kalidasan on 6 February, 1987
10. Having noticed the submissions of the learned counsel, I am of the view that because the deceased driver was an employee/workman under respondent No. 3 and the claimants could have filed a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act, it does not seem very reasonable that when a Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act entertains the claim petition, the Tribunal was bound to assess the compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. My aforesaid view is supported by the decisions in Mangilal v. Pramod 1988 ACJ 307 (MP) and Ayisha Beevi v. Kalidasan 1987 ACJ 584 (Kerala).
1