SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

MANJULA CHELLUR, JOYMALYA BAGCHI, ARIJIT BANERJEE
Phulmaya Tamang – Appellant
Versus
General Insurance Co. Ltd. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :Subir Banerjee, Jayanta Banerjee and Rukmini Basu Roy, Advocates.

JUDGMENT :

1. The questions raised in the above reference to be answered by a Larger Bench are as follows :-

"1. What would be the basis of fixing the multiplier for the purpose of deciding the amount of compensation in a proceeding under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988? and

2. Whether or not it would be proper to fix such multiplier on the basis of the remaining period of service of the victim and/or the deceased in a case where the victim and/or the deceased had died after fifty years of age?"

2. This reference is made in the year 2012 and the matter is kept pending till date. Meanwhile, several decisions of the Apex Court touching the issues have come and the latest judgment of the Apex Court is in the case of Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., reported in (2013) 9 SCC 65. Further this is a judgment by a Bench consisting of three Judges. On perusal of the judgment, at paras 1.1 and 1.2, the two common questions, which fell for consideration before the Bench read as under :-

"1.1. Whether the multiplier specified in the Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the 1988 Act) should be scrupulously applied in all cases? And

1.2. Whether for









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top