· 

MACT - Injury

 (i) Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 166 – Injury – Multiplier method  - Disability of 31.1% of the whole body – Age 23 years – Multiplier of 18 applied  (following Pranay Sethi, (2017-4)188 P.L.R. 693 (S.C.)) - Multiplier method was logically sound and legally well established to quantify the loss of income as a result of death or permanent disability suffered in an accident. Sandeep Khanuja v. Atul Dande, (2017-2)186 PLR 570 (SC),  followed. (2020)199 Punjab Law Reporter 429 (SC)

 

(ii) Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 166 – Injury – Future prospects  - permanent disability as 31.1% qua whole body – Software engineer aged 23 years  - Future prospects must also be applied in the case of the appellant taking the permanent disability as 31.1% -  The quantification of the same on the basis of Pranay Sethi, (2017-4)188 P.L.R. 693 (S.C.),  considering the age of the appellant, would be 50% of the actual salary.     (2020)199 Punjab Law Reporter 429 (SC)

 

(iii) Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 166 – Injury – Matrimonial Aspects – Loss of -  Rs. 5,00,000/- granted . (2020)199 Punjab Law Reporter 429 (SC)

 

(iv) Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 166 – Interest – Grated at 9%  - From date of application till the date of payment.(2020)199 Punjab Law Reporter 429 (SC)

 

Cases referred to:-

1. (2017-4)188 P.L.R. 693 (S.C.),  National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi.

2. (2009-3) 155 PLR 22 (SC), Smt. Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation.

3. (2018) 4 SCC 571, Jagdish v. Mohan

 

4. (2017-2)186 PLR 570 (SC),  Sandeep Khanuja v. Atul Dande.

Subscribe

PUNJAB LAW REPORTER 

2020 in 4 volumes

@Rs 2800/- only

Call 9463598502

 

Please mention your email id alongwith your comments if you want us to contact you. 

Write a comment

Comments: 1
  • #1

    Nambiar (Tuesday, 28 July 2020 03:27)

    Is this judgement not pronounced yesterday.... Love the reporting... Worth every rupee.