Santosh Devi vs National Insurance Co.Ltd.& Ors on 23 April, 2012
The remaining question is only on multiplier. The High Court following
Santosh Devi (supra), has taken 13 as the multiplier.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.19 seconds)Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009
“36. In Sarla Verma, this Court has endeavoured to simplify the otherwise
complex exercise of assessment of loss of dependency and determination of
compensation in a claim made under Section 166. It has been rightly stated
in Sarla Verma that the claimants in case of death claim for the purposes
of compensation must establish (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the
deceased; and (c) the number of dependants. To arrive at the loss of
dependency, the Tribunal must consider (i) additions/deductions to be made
for arriving at the income; (ii) the deductions to be made towards the
personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be
applied with reference to the age of the deceased. We do not think it is
necessary for us to revisit the law on the point as we are in full
agreement with the view in Sarla Verma.”
In Sarla Verma (supra), at paragraph-19, a two-Judge Bench dealt with this
aspect in Step 2. To quote:
Reshma Kumari & Ors vs Madan Mohan & Anr on 2 April, 2013
Whether the
multiplier should depend on the age of the dependants or that of the
deceased, has been hanging fire for sometime; but that has been given a
quietus by another three-Judge Bench decision in Reshma Kumari (supra). It
was held that the multiplier is to be used with reference to the age of the
deceased. One reason appears to be that there is certainty with regard to
the age of the deceased but as far as that of dependants is concerned,
there will always be room for dispute as to whether the age of the eldest
or youngest or even the average, etc., is to be taken. To quote:
Smt. Rajesh And Others vs Rajbir Singh And Others on 29 January, 2010
As far as future prospects are concerned, in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir
Singh and others[4], a three-Judge Bench of this Court held that in case of
self-employed persons also, if the deceased victim is below 40 years, there
must be addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while
computing future prospects. To quote:
Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
1