Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 29 (0.32 seconds)Section 168 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Raj Kumar vs Ajay Kumar & Anr on 18 October, 2010
7.8.1.1 In the cross- examination, he has admitted that when the
claimant had come for the disability certificate, he was conscious; he
had not given any treatment to the claimant. He admitted that in the
Page 19 of 59
Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:14:39 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1493/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2023
undefined
treatment papers, there is no reference to paraplegia or quadriplegia
and has admitted that when he was given discharge from Gokul
Hospital, he was unconscious and there was movement in all the
four limbs when he was brought before him, but has also admitted
that there were tremors and there was no balance in the limbs and
could not on his own, stand or walk nor could eat. As also has
admitted that he has not referred in his certificate the percentage of
power in his limbs. But has stated that because of imbalance, there
was no tone coordination and stated that with the support of others,
he could walk and has also stated that because of the injury in the
head, there would not be sufficient strength in his body and it would
be improbable of having recovery within six months to two years.
7.8.2 In the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Another, (2011)
1 SCC 343, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 9 to 11 has
considered the aspect of assessing the loss of earning capacity with a
word of caution to the Tribunal that it should not mechanically apply
the percentage of permanent disability as percentage of loss of
earning capacity. The relevant observations as reproduced herein
Page 20 of 59
Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:14:39 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1493/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2023
undefined
below:
Mr. R.D. Hattangadi vs M/S Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 6 January, 1995
7.23 In R. D. Hattangadi (supra), the case observed of a claimant
who had started a practice as an Advocate and the future loss of
earning had been calculated only for 10 years, applying the
multiplier of 16. The Attendant Charges had been allowed only for
Page 45 of 59
Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:14:39 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1493/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2023
undefined
20 years with one Attendant. It was held that multiplier method was
required to be adopted. The multiplier method has been recognized
as most realistic and reasonable because it has been decided looking
to the age, inflation rate, uncertainty of life and other realistic needs.
7.24 The multiplier method involves the ascertainment of loss of
dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances
of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate
multiplier. The multiplier would be applied to the annual sum for
each item of future loss and damage. The annual sum would be the
multiplicand. The equation, the multiplier multiplies the
multiplicand would yield the total sum of damages for the item of
loss and damage concerned, and according to the multiplier theory,
the likely future loss is assessed by multiplying the likely loss due to
occur every year with a multiplier which indicates a number of years
for which the loss is likely to continue. The multiplier is a figure
representing the number of years by which, the annual loss (the
multiplicand) is multiplied to reflect the period over which, the loss
is likely to be suffered.
Meena Devi vs Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto on 13 October, 2022
11.2 This Court considers that the present matter in which the age
of deceased minor was 14 years and 03 months at the time of
accident, should be placed at the same pedestal, as has been
Page 57 of 59
Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:14:39 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1493/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2023
undefined
observed in cases of Kishan Gopal and Another (supra) and
Meena Devi (supra).
Section 171 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Kurvan Ansari Alias Kurvan Ali vs Shyam Kishore Murmu on 16 November, 2021
The Hon'ble Apex Court after applying the
ratio laid down in Kurvan Ansari @ Kurvan Ali & Another (supra),
and the principle laid down in Kishan Gopal and Another (supra),
accepting the notional earning of Rs.30,000/-, including the future
prospect and by applying the multiplier 15, in view of the decision in
Sarla Verma (supra), assessed the loss of dependency as
Rs.4,50,000/-, and further Rs.50,000/- was added in conventional
head, and, thus total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- was granted.
Lata Wadhwa & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 16 August, 2001
10.3 In Kishan Gopal and Another (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, by referring the facts of the case of minor aged about 10
Page 54 of 59
Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:14:39 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1493/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2023
undefined
years, had considered the notional income as Rs.30,000/- by
applying multiplier of 15, considered Rs.4,50,000/- as dependency
loss and Rs.50,000/- has been considered under the conventional
heads for loss of love and affection, funeral expense and last rites, as
was held in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport
Corporation v. Susamma Thomas, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC), which is
referred to in Lata Wadhwa and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors.,
(2001) 1 SCC 197.
General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C vs Susamma Thomas on 6 January, 1993
10.3 In Kishan Gopal and Another (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, by referring the facts of the case of minor aged about 10
Page 54 of 59
Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:14:39 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1493/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2023
undefined
years, had considered the notional income as Rs.30,000/- by
applying multiplier of 15, considered Rs.4,50,000/- as dependency
loss and Rs.50,000/- has been considered under the conventional
heads for loss of love and affection, funeral expense and last rites, as
was held in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport
Corporation v. Susamma Thomas, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC), which is
referred to in Lata Wadhwa and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors.,
(2001) 1 SCC 197.
B.Kothandapani vs Tamil Nadu State Transport Corp.Ltd on 12 May, 2011
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1493/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2023
undefined
7.8.7 In K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Company Ltd., (2012)
12 SCC 274, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while referring to the
earlier earlier judgments in Ramesh Chandra v Randhir Singh,
(1990) 3 SCC 723 and B. Kothandapani v Tamil Nadu State
Transport Corporation Limited, (2011) 6 SCC 420, held that the
compensation can be granted for disability as well as for loss of
future earnings, for the first head, relates to the impairment of a
person's capacity, while the other relates to the sphere of pain and
suffering and loss of enjoyment of life by the person himself.