JOGINDER SINGH . vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

NON­REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.  6291 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 34239 of 2015) Joginder Singh & Anr.   …Appellants versus ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company      …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 22.05.2015 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in FAO (MVA) No. 386 of 2014.     The Appellants herein have filed the present Civil Appeal for enhancement of the compensation granted by the Motor Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by RACHNA Date: 2019.08.14 16:30:36 IST Reason: 1 Accident   Claims   Tribunal,   Shimla   (“MACT”)   and   the   High Court. 2. The factual matrix in which the present Civil Appeal arises is briefly stated as under :– 2.1. The   daughter   of   the   Appellants   viz.   Ambika  Thakur was a student who was undertaking an Air Hostess Training   Program   at   the   Frankfinn   Institute, Chandigarh. 2.2. On   10.9.2009,   Ambika   Thakur   was   travelling   in   a Verna car bearing Registration No. CH­04­H­0297 from Chandigarh to Bhatinda.    The car met with an accident with a Tata Ace vehicle bearing Registration No. PB­03T­4804 which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The offending vehicle   suddenly   stopped   in   front  of   the   Verna  car, which   led   to   head   long   collision   between   the   two vehicles, and resulted in the death of Ambika Thakur on the spot. Ambika Thakur was 20 years old at the time of her death. 2       The   offending   vehicle   was   insured   with   the Respondent – Insurance Company.  2.3. The   Appellants   herein   being   the   parents   of   the deceased,   filed   a   Claim   Petition   before   the   MACT, Shimla claiming compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/­ on the death of their daughter. 2.4. The   MACT   vide   Award   dated   15.07.2014   granted compensation  of Rs. 10,40,000/­  to  the Appellant – Claimants along with interest @7.5% p.a.    The compensation was awarded under the following heads :– (i) The notional income of the deceased was taken as Rs. 15,000/­ p.m.; (ii) A deduction of 50% was made from the notional income of the deceased, since she was unmarried; (iii) The   MACT   applied   the   Multiplier   of   11   on   the basis of the age of the mother of the deceased; (iv) An amount of Rs. 25,000/­ was awarded towards loss of love and affection; 3 (v) An amount of Rs. 25,000/­ was awarded towards funeral expenses. 2.5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Award, the Appellants filed FAO (MVA) No. 386 of 2014 before the High Court of Himachal   Pradesh   at   Shimla   for   enhancement   of compensation.       The   High   Court   vide   impugned   Judgment   dated 22.05.2015   dismissed   the   Appeal,   and   upheld   the amount of compensation awarded by the MACT. 3. Aggrieved   by   the   aforesaid   Judgment,   the   Appellant   – Claimants have filed the present Civil Appeal.    We have heard the learned Counsel for the Appellants and the Respondent – Insurance Company. 3.1. The   Counsel   for   the   Appellants   submitted   that   the MACT and the High Court applied the wrong Multiplier of 11 by erroneously taking into consideration the age of the mother of the deceased, instead of the age of the deceased. 4      It was submitted that as per the decision in   Sarla 1 Verma & Ors.   v.   Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. , the Multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied for the deceased   who   was   20   years   old   at   the   time   of   the accident. 3.2. It was further submitted that the Courts below failed to award   compensation   towards   Future   Prospects   and loss of estate. 3.3. The   Counsel   for   the   Insurance   Company   submitted that the Courts below were justified in applying the Multiplier of 11 which should be as per the age of the mother   of   the   deceased,   and   not   the   age   of   the deceased. Reliance was placed on this Court’s decision in   New India Assurance Co. Ltd.   v.   Shanti Pathak & 2 Ors . 4. We have perused the judgments of the Courts below, and find that the wrong Multiplier has been applied to the facts of the present case. 1  (2009) 6 SCC 121. 2  (2007) 10 SCC 1. 5      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 parents, is no longer  res integra . This issue has been recently settled by a   three   Judge   bench   of   this   Court   in   Royal   Sundaram Alliance   Insurance   Co.   Ltd.   v.   Mandala   Yadagari   Goud   & 3 Ors. ,  wherein it has been held that the Multiplier has to be applied on the basis on the age of the deceased. The Court held that : “10.  A reading of the judgment in Sube Singh (supra) shows that where a three Judge Bench has categorically taken the view that it is the age   of   the   deceased   and   not   the   age   of   the parents that would be the factor for the purposes of   taking   the   multiplier   to   be   applied.  This judgment undoubtedly relied upon the case of Munna Lal Jain (supra) which is also a three Judge   Bench   judgment   in   this   behalf.   The relevant portion of the judgment has also been extracted. Once again the extracted portion in turn   refers   to   the   judgment   of   a   three   Judge Bench in Reshma Kumari and  Ors. v. Madan Mohan and Anr. (2013) 9 SCC 65. The relevant portion of Reshma Kumari in turn has referred to Sarla   Verma   (supra)   case   and   given   its imprimatur to the same. The loss of dependency is   thus   stated   to   be   based   on:   (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. It is the   third   aspect   which   is   of   significance   and 3  (2019) 5 SCC 554. 6 Reshma Kumari categorically states that it does not   want   to   revisit   the   law   settled   in   Sarla Verma case in this behalf. 11. Not only this,  the subsequent judgment of the   Constitution   bench   in   Pranay   Sethi (supra)  has  also  been   referred   to  in   Sube Singh for the purpose of calculation of the multiplier. 12.  We are convinced that there is no need to once again take up this issue settled by the   aforesaid   judgments   of   three   Judge Bench   and   also   relying   upon   the Constitution Bench that it is the age of the deceased   which   has   to   be   taken   into account and not the age of the dependents. ” (emphasis supplied)    In the present case, since the deceased was 20 years old, a Multiplier   of   18   ought   to   have   been   applied   as   per   the decision of this Court in  Sarla Verma (supra). 4.1. We further find that the Courts below have failed to award Future Prospects @40% of the income of the deceased,   as   mandated   by   the   judgment   of   the Constitution Bench in National   Insurance Co. Ltd.   v. 4 Pranay Sethi & Ors.       We direct that the compensation be re­worked after awarding 40% towards Future Prospects. 4  (2017) 16 SCC 680. 7 4.2. Furthermore, the Courts below have failed to award loss of estate @Rs.15,000/­ as per the  judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra) . 4.3. The Courts below have awarded a lump sum amount of Rs. 25,000/­ towards loss of love and affection.     This Court in  Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd.  v. 5  has held that a sum of Rs. 40,000/­ Nanu Ram & Ors. is to be paid to each of the parents towards loss of consortium   on   the   death   of   a   child.   Therefore,   the Appellants   are   entitled   to   be   awarded   Rs.   40,000/­ each towards loss of consortium. 4.4. The   funeral   expenses   and   interest   awarded   by   the MACT are maintained. 5. In   light   of   the   aforesaid   discussion,   the   compensation awarded to the Appellants is being enhanced as follows :

5  (2018) 18 SCC 130. 8

6. The Respondent – Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 13,48,000/­ to the Appellants within 1 month from the date of this judgment.      The enhanced amount shall carry Simple Interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till the date of realization. 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 14, 2019. 9