TMI Blog2003 (2) TMI 505X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant herein late (Dr.) Ramani Kanta Bezbaruah met with a fatal accident on 13th November, 1990 while he was proceeding on a scooter whence a jeep bearing registration No. MLK-5548 dashed against it. The claimant claimed compensation for a sum of ₹ 27,46,000/- before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal, however, having regard to the deceased's salary which at the relevant point of time was ₹ 3500/- per month, calculated the monthly dependency at ₹ 1700/-. The Tribunal calculated the life expectancy of the deceased to be 65 years, and the age of the deceased at the time of accident being 40 years, applied 15 as multiplier. However, from the said amount, 20% was directed to be deducted towards uncertaint ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Vs. Jupitor General Insurance Company and Others [(1990) 1 SCC 356], Kaushnuma Begum (Smt.) and Others Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others [(2001) 2 SCC 9] and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others Vs. Patricia Jean Mahajan and Others [(2002) 6 SCC 281]. The learned counsel would next contend as the appellant was earning about ₹ 3500/- per month, i.e. ₹ 42,000/- per year, upon deducting one third thereof from the said amount, a sum of ₹ 28,000/- per annum should have been held to the loss of dependency and in that view of the matter the amount of compensation should have been calculated by applying multiplier of 16 as the age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 40 years. Mr. Ashok Bhan, the le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... own the guidelines for determination of the amount of compensation in terms of Section 166 thereof. Deviation of the structured formula, however, as has been held by this Court, may be resorted to in exceptional cases. Furthermore, the amount of compensation should be just and fair in the facts and circumstances of each case. The victim at the relevant time was 40 years of age. The Tribunal and the High Court, therefore, cannot be said to have committed an error in applying the multiplier of 15. The only question which is required to be considered now is as to how the multiplicand should be arrived at. The deceased at the time of accident was a young man. He had a stable job. A reasonably liberal view of his future prospects should ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
