LawCite Search | LawCite Markup Tool | Help | Feedback Law Cite

Schedule and the 'multiplier' figures got wrongly typed as 15, 16, 17, 18, 17, 16, 15, 13, 11, 8, 5 & 5 instead of 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 12, 10, 8, 6 and 5 Another noticeable incongruity is, having prescribed the notional minimum income of non-earning persons as MAC Appeal Nos 152/2014, 232/2013, 1190/2012 & 196/2013 Page 13 of 21 Rs 15,000/- per annum, the table prescribes the compensation payable even in cases where the annual income ranges between Rs 3000/- and Rs 12000/- This leads to an anomalous position in regard to applications under Section 163A of MV Act, as the compensation will be higher in cases where the deceased was idle and not having any income, than in cases where the deceased was honestly earning an income ranging between Rs 3000/- and Rs 12,000/- per annum Be that as it may 18 The principles relating to determination of liability and quantum of compensation are different for claims made under Section 163A of MV Act and claims under Section 166 of MV Act (See : Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v Meena Variyal     1

Cases Referring to this Case

Case Name †	Citation(s)	Court	Jurisdiction	Date	Full Text		Citation Index
Mohd Hasnain v Jagram Meena - MacApp 152/2014	[2014] INDLHC 1465	High Court of Delhi	India	24 Mar 2014	LIIofIndia