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

2000 Supreme(MP) 56

USHA SHUKLA, D.M.DHARMADHIKARI
BODHIRAM – Appellant
Versus
RAMPRASAD – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
SANJAY KUMAR AGARWAL, V.P.VERMA

USHA SHUKLA, J.

( 1 ) VII Motor Accidents claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 50,000 as compensation for the death of Vijay Kumar in an automobile accident on 20. 2. 1996. His parents have filed this appeal against that award, claiming enhancement of compensation.

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants argued that the deceased was aged about 15 years and was studying in class VII. He was a meritorious student having bright prospects. The Tribunal limited the compensation to Rs. 50,000 which was awarded by way of interim compensation. This was highly unjustified and inadequate.

( 3 ) HAVING heard the counsel for both sides and having perused the record, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed. Although the deceased was not an earning member, yet following the guidelines given under the Second Schedule to section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, we would take his notional income to be rs. 15,000 per annum. And considering the age of the claimant and other imponderables, the proper multiplier in our view would be 12. The amount thus calculated comes to Rs. 1,80,000. Making a deduction of 1/3rd, the amount conies to Rs. 1,20,000. Adding thereto a sum of Rs. 2,000 towards funeral





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