QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION MV ACT

 

QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION MV ACT

 

 

17.SC granted 100% increase in the actual income of the deceased and deducted only 1/10 amount as personal expenditure.

2012 ACJ 2131 (SC) N.

I. A. Com. v/s Dipali.

18 No proof of income In such case, compensation should be assessed on the basis of minimum wages payable at relevant time.

2012 ACJ 28 (SC)Govind Yadav.

When deceased was working in the unorganized sector, his LR cannot be completed to produce proof with respect to income of deceased. In such a situation, minimum wages shall be taken into

consideration.

Sanjay Kumar v/s Ashok Kumar, 2014(5) SCC 330.

19. Future income in the case where age of deceased is more than 50? Whether can be considered?Held ; yes but only in exceptional cases.

K. R. Madhusudhan v/s Administrative Officer, 2011 ACJ 743.

Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.19605 of 2017

(SLP (C) No.37617 of 2016), dated 22 November, 2017

has found merit in the submission made on behalf of the claimants that view taken in Pranay Sethi's case is no bar future prospects being taken at level higher 25% in the case deceased above 40 years or 50% in the case the deceased was below 40 years if evidence on record so warrant and standardization may be increased based on presumption but when there is an actual evidence led to the satisfaction of the Tribunal/Court that future prospects was higher than the standard percentage, there is no bar to the Tribunal/Court awarding higher compensation on that basis.

2018 ACJ 5 – Hem Raj v/s. O.I. Com.

Similar view taken in AIR 2018 SC 2088 –

Sureshchandra Bagmal Doshi vs. NIA Com.

20. Best example of the case where injured was a

government servant and met with accident but because of accident he did not suffer any salary loss good observations of House of Lords, reported in 1912 AC 496.

2013 ACJ 79 – para 20.,

In Lt. Colonel Anoop malhotra v/s Chhatar

Singh, 2014 ACJ 1991 (Raj), a case of Lt.

Colonel who after the accident declared unfit to

be Lt. Colonel and was posted as Colonel in

Civil Wings. Inspite of the fact that his income

did not decrease, compensation under the other

heads allowed. Also see 2016 ACJ 2545 (Hyd)

21. Government servant injury case what should be the basis for computation of amount of compensation? Whether multiplier of 5 would be applied or 25% income should be considered? Two

Views – First says

that multiplier of 5 would be applicableDahyabhai

Parmar v/s Ramavtar sharam, reported in 2006 (4) GLR

2844 and case reported in 1993 (2) GLR 1046whereas second view says that 25% of the salary income should be considered Mohanbhai

Gemabhai v/s. Balubhai Savjibhai, reported in 1993(1) GLR 249 and 2013 ACJ

79 – para 20., 2017 ACJ 567 (HP)\

21. A Deceased aged about 45 was a life convict – what should be multiplier?Held term of life sentence that is 14 years to be added in the age of the deceased – i.e. 45 plus 14 would be 59 and multiplier would be 9.

2018 ACJ 2171 (Mad)

22 In the fatal accident cases Rupees One lac may be granted under the head of consortium and loss of estate, each and Rupees 25K be given under the head of funeral expenditure.

2013 ACJ 1403 (SC – FB) Rajesh v/s Rajinder

Singh. Followed also in Kalpanaraj v/s TSRTC,

2014 ACJ 1388 (SC). Also followed in Kala Devi

v/s Bhagwan Das Chauhan, 2014 ACJ 2875 (SC). For decision of quantum matter is referred to larger bench in case of Shashikala v/s Gangalakshmamma,

2015 ACJ 1239 (SC).

Hon'ble Three Judges of (FB) Supreme Court

in the case of Munna Lal Jain v/s Vipin kumar

Sharma, reported in 2015 ACJ 1985 has held that

LR self employed (Pandit) deceased are entitled

for compensation calculated on the basis of

future prospect.

2015 ACJ 1985.

After the ratio laid down by the Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), two judges of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of in the case of Bhagwati Yadav v/s. O.I. Com., 2018 ACJ 11 has awarded

Rs.1,00,000/for

loss of estate and funeral,

Rs.50,000/for

loss of consortium and

Rs.50,000/for

loss of love and affection.

23In the case of Jiju Kuruwila v/s Kunjujamma Mohan,

2013 ACJ 2141 (SC), it is held that each child of the

deceased is entitled for Rs.1,00,000/under

the head

of loss of love and affection.

24Death

of AgriculturistDetermination

of

compensationGuideline

given.

2013 ACJ 1481 Supervisory

capacity 2022

ACJ

1614 (Guj) NIA

Com. v/s. Jayaba Jayvirshnh Jhala Jst

R M Chhaya and Jst Hemant Prachchhak

25Accident

of Film/TV actressGuideline

for

compensation and medical bills

2013 ACJ 2161 (SC) – Rekha Jain v/s N.I.Com.

26Fatal

AccidentBusiness

manClaimants

did not

adduce any evidence with respect to the future income

of the claimant. Not

entitled for it.

2013 ACJ 2269 (Ori)

27Principle

for assessment of compensation in the case

where minor has sustained disabilityguideline.

2013 ACJ 2445 (SC) – Mallikarjun v/s Division

Manager.

2013 ACJ 2445 (SC) – Mallikarjun v/s Division Manager

is

not followed by SC in the case of Kum

Nazama v/s. Managing Director, 2022 ACJ 2380

M V ACT - IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS - H S MULIA PAGE NO.54

(SC)

27AWhether

deviation from Mallikarjun case is possible?Heldyes

– bur special reasons should be assigned for it.

2017 ACJ 1459 (Ker)

28Student

of EngineeringFatalSC

assessed compassion

to the tune of Rs.7 lakhs.

2013 ACJ 2860 (SC) Radhakrishna

v/s Gokul

28AStudent

of MBA – SC consider notional income as

10,000/per

month.Shakuntala

v/s. Balraj, 2019 ACJ

3164 (SC).

29Rs.

1,25,000/is

awarded under the head of PSS and

Future Attendance Charges.

2014 ACJ 23 (Guj) – Shaileshkmar Natwarji

Thakore

30Paraplegiain

such case disability shall be

considered as 100%.

2014 ACJ 107 (P&H),2014 ACJ 595 (HP)