Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.26 seconds)Union Of India vs Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors on 5 May, 2008
39. It may be noted that though not quoted, reliance is placed
on M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari (2002) 2 SCC 162 and
Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijay Kumar (2008) 9 SCC 527,
wherein, it was reiterated that the rule of strict liability as laid down by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta Case (1987) 1 SCC 395 is not
subject to any exceptions as laid down in the judgment of Rylands v.
Flethcher(supra) and in Shail Kumar (supra) it has been observed
in para no. 8 & 12 as under :
M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 March, 2004
In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India this Court has gone even
beyond the rule of strict liability by holding that "where an
enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous
activity and harm is caused on any one on account of the
accident in the operation of such activity, the enterprise is strictly
and absolutely liable to compensate those who are affected by
the accident; such liability is not subject to any of the exceptions
to the principle of strict liability under the rule in Rylands v.
Fletcher."
Lata Wadhwa & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 16 August, 2001
52. Compensation in case of loss of life is calculated on the
basis of pecuniary loss. It is settled law that compensation ought to be
granted under heads such as pecuniary and non pecuniary damages.
As the financial loss suffered pertains to uncertain feature, arithmetic
niceties are not required and a rough and a fair estimate is made on
the basis of the evidence and material placed on record. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court after examining various theories for calculating
quantum of pecuniary compensation has repeatedly held that
multiplier method is logically sound and legally well established.
Though not quoted reliance is placed upon Lata Wadhwa v State of
Bihar 2001 (8) SCC 197, and judgment passed in R.K. Malik v.
Kiran Pal in Civil Appeal No. 3608/2009, wherein Hon'ble Supreme
Court has observed as under :
R.K. Malik & Anr vs Kiran Pal & Ors on 15 May, 2009
52. Compensation in case of loss of life is calculated on the
basis of pecuniary loss. It is settled law that compensation ought to be
granted under heads such as pecuniary and non pecuniary damages.
As the financial loss suffered pertains to uncertain feature, arithmetic
niceties are not required and a rough and a fair estimate is made on
the basis of the evidence and material placed on record. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court after examining various theories for calculating
quantum of pecuniary compensation has repeatedly held that
multiplier method is logically sound and legally well established.
Though not quoted reliance is placed upon Lata Wadhwa v State of
Bihar 2001 (8) SCC 197, and judgment passed in R.K. Malik v.
Kiran Pal in Civil Appeal No. 3608/2009, wherein Hon'ble Supreme
Court has observed as under :
Smt Sarla Dixit & Anr vs Balwant Yadav & Ors on 29 February, 1996
"14. For calculating the yearly loss of dependency the starting
point is the wages being earned by the deceased, less his
personal and living expenses. This provides a basic figure.
Thereafter, effect is given to the future prospects of the deceased,
inflation and general price rise that erodes value and the
purchasing power of money. To the multiplicand so calculated,
multiplier is to be applied. The multiplier is decided and
determined on the basis of length of dependency, which must be
estimated. This has to be necessarily discounted for contingencies
and uncertainties. Reference in this regard may be made to the
judgments of this Court in the case of Sarla Dixit v. Balwant
Page No. 25 of 30
CS No.: 160/2016 Sunita & Ors. v. BSES & Ors. DOD : 06.01.2021
Yadav; Managing Director TNSTC Ltd. v. K.T. Bindu; T.N. State
Transport Corporation Ltd. v. S. Rajapriya; New India Assurance
Co. Ltd. v. Charlie and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Patric a
Jean Mahajan"
The Managing Director, Tnstc Ltd vs K.I. Bindu And Ors on 5 October, 2005
"14. For calculating the yearly loss of dependency the starting
point is the wages being earned by the deceased, less his
personal and living expenses. This provides a basic figure.
Thereafter, effect is given to the future prospects of the deceased,
inflation and general price rise that erodes value and the
purchasing power of money. To the multiplicand so calculated,
multiplier is to be applied. The multiplier is decided and
determined on the basis of length of dependency, which must be
estimated. This has to be necessarily discounted for contingencies
and uncertainties. Reference in this regard may be made to the
judgments of this Court in the case of Sarla Dixit v. Balwant
Page No. 25 of 30
CS No.: 160/2016 Sunita & Ors. v. BSES & Ors. DOD : 06.01.2021
Yadav; Managing Director TNSTC Ltd. v. K.T. Bindu; T.N. State
Transport Corporation Ltd. v. S. Rajapriya; New India Assurance
Co. Ltd. v. Charlie and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Patric a
Jean Mahajan"
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation ... vs S. Rajapriya And Two Others on 20 April, 2005
"14. For calculating the yearly loss of dependency the starting
point is the wages being earned by the deceased, less his
personal and living expenses. This provides a basic figure.
Thereafter, effect is given to the future prospects of the deceased,
inflation and general price rise that erodes value and the
purchasing power of money. To the multiplicand so calculated,
multiplier is to be applied. The multiplier is decided and
determined on the basis of length of dependency, which must be
estimated. This has to be necessarily discounted for contingencies
and uncertainties. Reference in this regard may be made to the
judgments of this Court in the case of Sarla Dixit v. Balwant
Page No. 25 of 30
CS No.: 160/2016 Sunita & Ors. v. BSES & Ors. DOD : 06.01.2021
Yadav; Managing Director TNSTC Ltd. v. K.T. Bindu; T.N. State
Transport Corporation Ltd. v. S. Rajapriya; New India Assurance
Co. Ltd. v. Charlie and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Patric a
Jean Mahajan"
New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Charlie And Anr on 29 March, 2005
"14. For calculating the yearly loss of dependency the starting
point is the wages being earned by the deceased, less his
personal and living expenses. This provides a basic figure.
Thereafter, effect is given to the future prospects of the deceased,
inflation and general price rise that erodes value and the
purchasing power of money. To the multiplicand so calculated,
multiplier is to be applied. The multiplier is decided and
determined on the basis of length of dependency, which must be
estimated. This has to be necessarily discounted for contingencies
and uncertainties. Reference in this regard may be made to the
judgments of this Court in the case of Sarla Dixit v. Balwant
Page No. 25 of 30
CS No.: 160/2016 Sunita & Ors. v. BSES & Ors. DOD : 06.01.2021
Yadav; Managing Director TNSTC Ltd. v. K.T. Bindu; T.N. State
Transport Corporation Ltd. v. S. Rajapriya; New India Assurance
Co. Ltd. v. Charlie and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Patric a
Jean Mahajan"
Smt. Rajesh And Others vs Rajbir Singh And Others on 29 January, 2010
However, in Rajesh v. Rajbir, 2013 (6) Scale 563, it
was held that the deceased was aged below 40 years, addition to
income should be 50% even where the deceased was self employed
or on fixed wages.