account of the untimely death was 22 years.
Therefore it applied the multiplier of 22 and arrived at the loss of
dependency to the family ... deceased, the High Court chose the multiplier of 13. Thus it arrived at
the loss of dependency as Rs.702,624/-. By adding
common
questions that arose for consideration. They are:-
“(1) Whether the multiplier specified in the Second
Schedule appended to the Act should be
scrupulously applied ... group of
the victims of accident, the second column indicates
the multiplier and the subsequent horizontal figures
indicate the quantum of compensation in thousand
payable
benefit of the
dependents. Then that should be capitalised by multiplying
it by a figure representing the proper number of year's
purchase ... calculation of compensation in fatal accident actions,
the first the multiplier mentioned in Davies case' and the
second in Nance v. British Columbia Electric
monthly rate of wages last drawn by him by twenty-six and multiplying the quotient by fifteen.] [ Inserted by Act 22 of 1987, Section
proceeded
to hear these appeals on two common questions, namely, (1) Whether
multiplier specified in the Second Schedule appended to the Motor
Vehicles ... Bench was of the opinion that the question, whether
the multiplier specified in the Second Schedule should be taken to be
guide for calculation
driver of the Maruti car.
4.1. The MACT applied the multiplier of 13, since the
deceased was a little over 40 years ... income at Rs. 2,68,000 p.m. and adopted
the multiplier of 12.
The contribution to the family was fixed
been analysed at the first instance. It has
been held that the multiplier method having been consistently
applied by the Supreme Court to decide ... compensation in the cases arising out of Motor Vehicles Act ,
the said multiplier method has been adopted in the present
case. In the report, even
consider
in this appeal relates to the use of the correct multiplier
for determination of compensation to be awarded to the legal
representatives ... years and
head, therefore, committed an error in employing the
multiplier of 24 years purchase factor instead of 34 years
purchase factor. Thus the compensation
mode as to the proper measure
of compensation - is taking an appropriate multiplier of an
appropriate multiplicand.
8. In General Manager Kerala State Road Transport ... Ors1., this
Court laid down the following principles:
"13. The multiplier method involves the ascertainment of
the loss of dependency or the multiplicand having
Limited [1]. 50 per cent was deducted towards personal expenditure
and a multiplier of 13 was applied. Still not satisfied, the claimants are
before this ... this Court issued notice … “confined to the issues on
application of correct multiplier and reduction of the amount”. In other
words, the Court intended
