Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (1.08 seconds)Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009
In our opinion, it is fair and
reasonable to assess his future earnings at Rs. 60,000/- per annum
taking the salary and allowances payable to an Assistant Engineer in
public employment as the basis. Since he suffered 70% permanent
disability, the future earnings may be discounted by 30% and,
accordingly, we estimate upon the facts that the multiplicand should
be Rs.42,000/- per annum. The appellant at the time of accident
was about 25 years. As per the decision of this Court in Sarla
Verma (Smt.) and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr1. the
operative multiplier would be 18. The loss of future earnings by
multiplying the multiplicand of Rs. 42,000/- by a multiplier of 18
1
(2009) 6 SCC 121
9
comes to Rs. 7,56,000/-. The damages to compensate the
appellant towards loss of future earnings, in our considered
judgment, must be Rs. 7,56,000/-. The Tribunal awarded him Rs.
1,50,000/- towards treatment including the medical expenses. The
same is maintained as it is and, accordingly, the total amount of
compensation to which the appellant is entitled is Rs. 9,06,000/- .
Reshma Kumari & Ors vs Madan Mohan & Anr on 23 July, 2009
12. Before we close, we must notice in all fairness to the
learned counsel for the insurer his submission that the appellant is
entitled to compensation in accordance with the Second Schedule
appended to the 1988 Act only. This submission overlooks the fact
that the appellant made his claim under Section 166 of the 1988 Act
and not under Section 163A. It is true that in Reshma Kumari & Ors.
v. Madan Mohan & Anr.,1 a two-Judge Bench of this Court has
referred the question whether multiplier specified in the Second
Schedule should be taken to be a guide for calculation of the amount
of compensation payable in a case falling under Section 166 to the
larger bench and the said question is not yet authoritatively decided.
However, in a case such as the present case, we find no justification
to await decision of the larger bench on the aforenoticed question as
there are already few decisions of this Court taking a view that the
1
(2009) 13 SCC 422
10
Second Schedule has no application to the claim petition made under
Section 166 of the 1988 Act.
1