Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6339 OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 2859 of 2018)
Smt. Sunita Tokas & Anr. …Appellants
versus
New India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. …Respondents
J U D G M E N T
INDU MALHOTRA, J.
Leave granted.
1. The present Civil Appeal has been filed to challenge the final
Judgment and Order dated 01.08.2017 passed by the High
Signature Not Verified
Court of Delhi in MAC. APP. No. 323 of 2017.
Digitally signed by
NEELAM GULATI
Date: 2019.08.16
15:20:41 IST
Reason:
1
The Appellants herein have filed the present Civil Appeal
for enhancement of the compensation granted by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi
(“MACT”) and the High Court.
2. The factual matrix in which the present Civil Appeal arises is
briefly stated as under :–
2.1. The son of the Appellants viz. Pradeep Tokas was a
student who was a trained swimmer, and had won
prizes in Statelevel events.
2.2. On 11.05.2004, Pradeep Tokas was sitting on a two
wheeler as a pillion rider, while travelling on the Upper
Ridge Road towards Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
At 1:05 a.m., the said twowheeler met with an
accident with a stationary Truck bearing Registration
No. HR51GA0525, which was not visible at night.
The truck was standing in the middle of the road
without any indicator lights on. The twowheeler
dashed against the stationary truck, and both Pradeep
Tokas and the driver died on the spot. Pradeep Tokas
was 21 years old at the time of his death.
2
2.3. The Appellants herein are the parents of the deceased,
who filed the Claim Petition before the MACT, Patiala
House Courts, New Delhi claiming compensation on
the death of their son.
2.4. The MACT vide Award dated 25.05.2009 granted
compensation of Rs. 14,87,140/ along with interest
@7% p.a. to the Appellant Claimants.
The compensation was awarded under the following
heads :–
(i) The notional income of the deceased was assessed
@Rs. 16,246/ p.m. after adding Future Prospects
@50%;
(ii) Deduction of 50% towards personal expenses was
made from the notional income of the deceased,
since he was a bachelor;
(iii) The MACT applied the Multiplier of 15 on the
basis of the age of the mother of the deceased;
(iv) Rs. 25,000/ was awarded towards loss of love
and affection;
3
(v) Rs. 10,000/ was awarded towards loss of estate
and consortium;
(vi) Rs. 5,000/ was awarded towards funeral
expenses.
2.5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Award, the Appellants filed
MAC. APP. 323 of 2017 before the Delhi High Court for
enhancement of compensation.
The Respondent – Insurance Company also filed a
crossAppeal for reduction of compensation.
The High Court the impugned common
vide
Judgment and Order dated 01.08.2017 dismissed the
Appeal filed by the Appellant – Claimants, and allowed
the Appeal filed by the Respondent – Insurance
Company in part.
The High Court reduced the amount of compensation
awarded by the MACT to Rs. 9,25,000/. The High
Court awarded the following amounts under various
heads :
(i) The notional income of the deceased was assessed
@Rs. 7,500/ p.m.;
4
(ii) Deduction of 50% was made from the notional
income of the deceased towards personal
expenses, since the deceased was a bachelor;
(iii) Multiplier of 15 was applied on the basis of the
age of the mother of the deceased;
(iv) Rs. 2,00,000/ was awarded towards loss of love
and affection;
(v) Rs. 50,000/ was awarded towards loss of estate
and funeral expenses.
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment, the Appellant –
Claimants have filed the present Civil Appeal for
enhancement of the compensation awarded.
We have heard the learned Counsel for the Appellants and
the Respondent – Insurance Company.
3.1. The Counsel for the Appellants inter alia submitted
that the MACT and the High Court had erroneously
applied the wrong Multiplier of 15, on the basis of the
age of the mother of the deceased.
5
It was submitted that the Multiplier of 18 ought to
have been applied on the basis of the age of the
deceased, as per the table set out in the judgment of
this Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport
1
Corporation & Anr.
3.2. It was further submitted that the High Court erred in
fixing the notional income of the deceased @7,500/
p.m., and did not award Future Prospects.
3.3. On the other hand, the Counsel for the Insurance
Company inter alia submitted that the Courts below
were justified in applying the Multiplier of 15 as per
the age of the mother of the deceased, and not the age
of the deceased who was a bachelor. Reliance was
placed on the decision in New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
2
v. .
Shanti Pathak & Ors
4. We have perused the judgments of the Courts below, and
find that the Multiplier has been fixed on the basis of the age
of the mother of the deceased boy.
1 (2009) 6 SCC 121.
2 (2007) 10 SCC 1.
6
The issue with respect to whether the Multiplier to be
applied in the case of a bachelor, should be computed on the
basis of the age of the deceased, or the age of the mother, is
no longer res integra . There are a catena of judgments
rendered by this Court, wherein it has been held that the
Multiplier has to be applied on the basis on the age of the
deceased, and not on the basis of the age of the dependants.
4.1. In Sarla Verma (supra) , this Court held that :
“19. … Having regard to the age of the deceased
and period of active career, the appropriate
multiplier should be selected. This does not
mean ascertaining the number of years he
would have lived or worked but for the accident.
Having regard to several imponderables in life
and economic factors, a table of multipliers with
reference to the age has been identified by this
Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the
said table with reference to the age of the
deceased.”
(emphasis supplied)
3
4.2. In Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Ors. , a
three judge bench of this Court held that :
“36. In Sarla Verma, this Court has endeavoured
to simplify the otherwise complex exercise of
assessment of loss of dependancy and
determination of compensation in a claim made
under Section 166. It has been rightly stated in
Sarla Verma 2009 (6) SCC 121 that claimants in
case of death claim for the purposes of
3 (2013) 9 SCC 65.
7
compensation must establish (a) age of the
deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and (c) the
number of dependants. To arrive at the loss of
dependency, the Tribunal must consider (i)
additions/deductions to be made for arriving at
the income; (ii) the deductions to be made
towards the personal living expenses of the
deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied
with reference to the age of the deceased. We do
not think it is necessary for us to revisit the law
on the point as we are in full agreement with the
view in Sarla Verma 2009 (6) SCC 121.”
(emphasis supplied)
4.3. In Amrit Bhanu Shali & Ors. v. National Insurance Co.
4
Ltd. & Ors. , this Court held that the selection of
multiplier is based on the age of the deceased, and not
on the basis of the age of the dependants. There may
be a number of dependants of the deceased, whose
ages would vary. Therefore, the age of the dependants
would have no nexus with the computation of
compensation.
4.4. Another three judge bench of this Court in Munna Lal
5
Jain & Ors. v. Vipin Kumar Sharma & Ors. , discussed
the issue as to whether the multiplier should depend
on the age of the dependants, or that of the deceased.
This Court held that the issue had been decided in
4 (2012) 11 SCC 738.
5 (2015) 6 SCC 347.
8
Reshma Kumari (supra) , wherein it was held that the
multiplier to be used, must be with reference to the age
of the deceased. The Court cited para 36 of the
judgment in Reshma Kumari (supra) , and held that :
“11. The remaining question is only on multiplier.
The High Court following Santosh Devi (supra),
has taken 13 as the multiplier. Whether the
multiplier should depend on the age of the
dependants or that of the deceased, has been
hanging fire for sometime; but that has been
given a quietus by another threeJudge Bench
decision in Reshma Kumari (supra). It was held
that the multiplier is to be used with reference to
the age of the deceased. One reason appears to
be that there is certainty with regard to the age
of the deceased but as far as that of dependants
is concerned, there will always be room for
dispute as to whether the age of the eldest or
youngest or even the average, etc., is to be
taken.”
(emphasis supplied)
4.5. The decision in Munna Lal Jain (supra) was followed by
another three judge bench of this Court in Sube Singh
6
& Ors. v. Shyam Singh (dead) & Ors.
4.6. The Constitution Bench in National Insurance
7
Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. , affirmed the
view taken in Sarla Verma (supra) and Reshma Kumari
(supra) , and recorded in the conclusions as under :
6 (2018) 3 SCC 18.
7 (2017) 16 SCC 680.
9
“59.7. The age of the deceased should be the
basis for applying the multiplier.”
4.7. Recently the legal issue whether in case of a motor
accident of a bachelor, the age of the deceased, or the
age of the dependants, would be taken into account,
for calculating the multiplier, came up for
consideration before a three judge bench of this Court
in Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
8
Mandala Yadagari Goud & Ors.
The Court referred to the earlier three judge bench
decision rendered in Munna Lal Jain (supra), which in
turn relied upon the judgment in Sarla Verma (supra),
which has been affirmed by the Constitution Bench in
Pranay Sethi (supra). The Court also referred to the
three judge bench decision in Sube Singh (supra) .
The Court after perusing all earlier judgments,
observed that the judicial pronouncements had devised
a standard formula for calculation of the compensation
qua various components. The amount of compensation
is to be paid to the claimants who are dependants in
8 (2019) 5 SCC 554.
10
the event of the death of a person, based on what the
deceased would have contributed to their support. The
amount received by the dependants becomes a part of
the estate, as they may live longer, or may be younger
than the age limits taken into account for calculation
of the multiplier to be applied in such a situation. In
the case of the death of a married person, it is an
accepted norm that the age of the deceased would be
taken into account. The Court held that even in the
case of a bachelor, the same principle must be applied.
The Court held that once the law is settled, it should
not repeatedly be changed, since certainty of law is of
crucial importance, to avoid any confusion.
4.8. In the present case, since the deceased was 21 years
old, the Multiplier of 18 was applicable as per the table
set out in the Sarla Verma case .
4.9. The High Court erred in reducing the notional income
of the deceased from Rs. 16,246/ as awarded by the
MACT, and reduced it to Rs. 7,500/.
11
The deceased was a trained swimmer who had won
several Statelevel competitions. His mother runs a
Swimming/Gym Centre at Air Force Station (Central
School), Gurgaon. Therefore, the deceased certainly
had the potential to earn a living by utilizing his skills.
In such circumstances, we deem it appropriate to fix
the notional income of the deceased @Rs. 12,000/
p.m.
4.10. The Courts below failed to grant Future Prospects
@40% of the notional income of the deceased, as per
the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Pranay
Sethi (supra).
4.11. The amounts awarded by the High Court under the
heads of loss of love and affection, loss of estate,
funeral expenses, and the Interest awarded by the
MACT, are however, maintained.
5. In light of the aforesaid discussion, the compensation
awarded to the Appellants is being enhanced as follows :
12
| i) Income : | Rs. 12,000/ |
|---|---|
| ii) Future Prospects : | Rs. 4,800/ (i.e. 40% of<br>the income) |
| iii) Deduction towards<br>personal expenses : | 50% |
| iv) Total income : | Rs. 8,400/ (i.e. 50% of<br>12,000 + 4,800) |
| v) Multiplier : | 18 |
| vi) Loss of future income : | Rs. 18,14,400/ (i.e.<br>8,400 x 12 x 18) |
| vii) Loss of love and affection : | Rs. 2,00,000/ |
| viii) Loss of estate and funeral<br>expenses : | Rs. 50,000/ |
| Total : | Rs. 20,64,400/ |
| Enhanced amount : | Rs. 11,39,400/ (i.e.<br>20,64,400 – 9,25,000) |
6. The Respondent – Insurance Company is directed to pay the
enhanced amount of Rs. 11,39,400/ to the Appellants within
1 month from the date of this judgment.
The enhanced amount shall carry Simple Interest @7% p.a.
from the date of filing the Claim Petition till the date of
realization.
13
The Civil Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. All
pending Applications, if any, are accordingly disposed of.
Ordered accordingly.
.......................................J.
(INDU MALHOTRA)
...…...............………………J.
(SANJIV KHANNA)
New Delhi;
August 16, 2019.
14