Full Judgment Text
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.7176 OF 2015
Sube Singh and Anr. …. Appellants
Versus
Shyam Singh (Dead) and Ors. ….Respondents
J U D G M E N T
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.
1. The sole question to be answered in this appeal is:
whether the High Court was right in applying multiplier 14 for
determining compensation amount in a motor accident claim
case in reference to the age of parents of the deceased whilst
relying on the decision of this Court in Ashvinbhai
Jayantilal Modi Vs. Ramkaran Ramchandra Sharma and
1
Anr. ?
2. Briefly stated, in a motor accident which occurred on
Signature Not Verified
22.09.2009, Ajit Singh, who was at the relevant time 23 years
Digitally signed by
SUBHASH CHANDER
Date: 2018.02.09
14:26:08 IST
Reason:
of age died. His parents, who were in the age group of 40 to 45
1
2015 (2) SCC 180
2
years, filed a petition claiming compensation. The Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal held that the established income of
the deceased was around Rs.4,200/ per month and after
deduction of 50% as the deceased was unmarried, calculated
the same as Rs.2,100/ per month. Thereafter, it applied
multiplier 15, taking the age of the “parents of the deceased”
into consideration. This was challenged by the appellants by
way of an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
at Chandigarh, being FAO No.330 of 2012 (O&M) which was
partly allowed in relation to other heads of compensation. As
regards multiplier applied for determination of loss of future
income, the High Court held that multiplier 14 will be
applicable. For that, the High Court relied on the decision of
this Court of (Two Judge Bench) in Ashvinbhai Jayantilal
(supra). Resultantly, the appellants have filed the
Modi
present appeal, questioning the correctness of the conclusion
so reached by the High Court.
According to the appellants, the correct multiplier to be
3.
applied in the facts of the present case is 18, as the deceased
3
was only 23 years of age on the date of accident. To buttress
this submission, reliance is placed on the decision in Sarla
Verma (Smt.) and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
2
And Anr. . Reliance is also placed on the recent judgment of
this Court (Three Judge Bench) in the case of
Munna Lal
3
Jain and Anr. Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and Ors. , which
has restated the legal position that multiplier should depend
on the age of the deceased and not on the age of the
dependents.
4. On the basis of the finding recorded by the Tribunal and
affirmed by the High Court, it is evident that the deceased was
23 years of age on the date of accident i.e. 22.09.2009. He was
unmarried and his parents who filed the petition for
compensation were in the age group of 40 to 45 years. The
High Court, relying on the decision in the case of
Ashvinbhai
Jayantilal Modi (supra), held that multiplier 14 will be
applicable in the present case, keeping in mind the age of the
2
2009 (6) SCC 121
3
2015 (6) SCC 347
4
parents of the deceased. The legal position, however, is no
more res integra. In the case of Munna Lal Jain (supra)
decided by a three Judge Bench of this Court, it is held that
multiplier should depend on the age of the deceased and not
on the age of the dependants. We may usefully refer to the
exposition in paragraph Nos. 11 and 12 of the reported
decision, which read thus:
“ 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 dependents or that of the deceased, has
been hanging fire for sometime; but that has been given a
quietus by another three Judge Bench decision in
Reshma Kumar (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
dependents 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. To quote
“36.In Sarla Verma, this Court has
endeavoured to simplify the otherwise
complex exercise of assessment of loss of
dependency and determination of
compensation in a claim made under Section
166. It has been rightly stated in Sarla Verma
that the claimants in case of death claim for
the purposes of compensation must establish
(a) age of the deceased. (b) income of the
deceased; and (c) the number of dependents.
To arrive at the loss of dependency, the
5
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.”
12. In Sarla Verma (supra), at paragraph19 a two
Judge Bench dealt with this aspect in Step 2. To quote:
“19.xxxx xxxxxx xxxx
Step 2 (ascertaining the multiplier)
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 out for the
accident having regard to several
imponderables in life and economic factors, a
table of multipliers with reference to be age
has been identified by this Court. The
multiplier should be chosen from the said
table with reference to the age of the
deceased.”
Considering the aforementioned principle expounded in Sarla
(supra), which has been affirmed by the Constitution
Verma
Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
4
the appellants are justified in
Pranay Sethi and Ors. ,
insisting for applying multiplier 18.
4
AIR 2017 SC 5157
6
5. A priori, we direct the respondents to pay compensation by
applying 18 multiplier, instead of 14 applied by the High Court.
In other words, considering the amount of annual contribution
to the deceased’s family determined at Rs.37,800/ and applying
multiplier 18, the compensation would work out to
Rs.6,80,400/ (Rupees six lakh eighty thousand four hundred
only), instead of Rs. 5,29,200/ determined by the High Court.
The amount of compensation under other heads determined by
the High Court in paragraph 5 of the impugned judgment would
remain undisturbed. The rate of interest is, however, modified to
9% (nine percent) per annum instead of 6% per annum granted
by the Tribunal and High Court. The order passed by the High
Court stands modified to the aforementioned extent.
6. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in the aforementioned
terms with no order as to costs.
.………………………….CJI.
(Dipak Misra)
…………………………..….J.
(A.M. Khanwilkar)
…………………………..….J.
(Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud)
New Delhi;
February 09, 2018.