SUBE SINGH AND ANR. versus SHYAM SINGH (DEAD) AND ORS. on 9 February 2018

636

[2018] 1 S.C.R. 636

SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2018] 1 S.C.R. 636

[2018] 1 S.C.R.

ASUBE SINGH AND ANR.

v.

SHYAM SINGH (DEAD) AND ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 7176 of 2015)

BFEBRUARY 09, 2018

[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR ANDDR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: s.166 – Multiplier – Fatal accident– Victim aged 23 years – High Court applied multiplier of 14 forCdetermining compensation amount in reference to the age of parentsof the deceased – Parents of the deceased seeking multiplier of 18– Held: In Sarla Verma case, it was held that the multiplier shouldbe chosen from the table with reference to the age of the deceasedand not the age of the dependents – In view of the said decision,Dmultiplier of 18 to be applied for paying compensation to theappellants-parents.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: The respondents are directed to pay compensationby applying 18 multiplier, instead of 14 applied by the High Court.EConsidering the amount of annual contribution to the deceased’sfamily determined at Rs.37,800/- and applying multiplier 18, thecompensation would work out to Rs.6,80,400/- determined bythe High Court. [Para 5] [639-F-G]

Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others v. Delhi TransportFCorporation And Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 : [2009] 5SCR 1098; Munna Lal Jain and Anr. v. Vipin KumarSharma and Ors. (2015) 6 SCC 347 : [2015] 7 SCR207 – relied on.

Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi v. Ramkaran RamchandraGSharma and Anr. (2015) 2 SCC 180 – referred to.

Case Law Reference

H

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7176of 2015.

From the Judgment and Order dated 02.12.2014 of the High Courtof Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in F. A. O. No. 330 of 2012(O&M).

Rakesh Kumar Yadav (For Dr. Kailash Chand), Advs. for theAppellants.

Chander Shekhar Ashri, Adv. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

A. M. KHANWILKAR, J. 1. The sole question to be answeredin this appeal is: whether the High Court was right in applying multiplier14 for determining compensation amount in a motor accident claim casein reference to the age of parents of the deceased whilst relying on thedecision of this Court in Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi Vs. RamkaranRamchandra Sharma and Anr.[1]?

2. Briefly stated, in a motor accident which occurred on 22.09.2009,Ajit Singh, who was at the relevant time 23 years of age died. His parents,who were in the age group of 40 to 45 years, filed a petition claimingcompensation. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held that theestablished income of the deceased was around Rs.4,200/- per monthand after deduction of 50% as the deceased was unmarried, calculatedthe same as Rs.2,100/- per month. Thereafter, it applied multiplier 15,taking the age of the “parents of the deceased” into consideration. Thiswas challenged by the appellants by way of an appeal before the HighCourt of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, being FAO No.330 of2012 (O&M) which was partly allowed in relation to other heads ofcompensation. As regards multiplier applied for determination of loss offuture income, the High Court held that multiplier 14 will be applicable.For that, the High Court relied on the decision of this Court of (TwoJudge Bench) in Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi (supra). Resultantly, theappellants have filed the present appeal, questioning the correctness ofthe conclusion so reached by the High Court.

3. According to the appellants, the correct multiplier to be appliedin the facts of the present case is 18, as the deceased was only 23 yearsof age on the date of accident. To buttress this submission, reliance is A

B

CD

E

FG

H

Aplaced on the decision in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others Vs. DelhiTransport Corporation And Anr.[2]. Reliance is also placed on the recentjudgment of this Court (Three Judge Bench) in the case of Munna LalJain and Anr. Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and Ors.[3], which has restatedthe legal position that multiplier should depend on the age of the deceasedand not on the age of the dependents.B

4. On the basis of the finding recorded by the Tribunal and affirmedby the High Court, it is evident that the deceased was 23 years of age onthe date of accident i.e. 22.09.2009. He was unmarried and his parentswho filed the petition for compensation were in the age group of 40 to 45years. The High Court, relying on the decision in the case of AshvinbhaiCJayantilal Modi (supra), held that multiplier 14 will be applicable in thepresent case, keeping in mind the age of the parents of the deceased.The legal position, however, is no more res integra. In the case ofMunna 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 andDnot on the age of the dependants. We may usefully refer to the expositionin paragraph Nos. 11 and 12 of the reported decision, which read thus:

“11. The remaining question is only on multiplier. The HighCourt following Santosh Devi (supra), has taken 13 as themultiplier. Whether the multiplier should depend on the ageEof the dependents or that of the deceased, has been hangingfire for sometime; but that has been given a quietus by anotherthree Judge Bench decision in Reshma Kumar (supra). It washeld that the multiplier is to be used with reference to the ageof the deceased. One reason appears to be that there iscertainty with regard to the age of the deceased but as far asFthat of dependents is concerned, there will always be roomfor dispute as to whether the age of the eldest or youngest oreven the average etc. is to be taken. To quote “36.In Sarla Verma, this Court has endeavoured to simplifythe otherwise complex exercise of assessment of loss ofGdependency and determination of compensation in a claimmade under Section 166. It has been rightly stated in SarlaVerma that the claimants in case of death claim for thepurposes of compensation must establish (a) age of the 2 2009 (6) SCC 121H 3 2015 (6) SCC 347

deceased. (b) income of the deceased; and (c) the numberof dependents. To arrive at the loss of dependency, theTribunal must consider (i) additions/deductions to be madefor arriving at the income; (ii) the deductions to be madetowards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and(iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the ageof the deceased. We do not think it is necessary for us torevisit the law on the point as we are in full agreement withthe view in Sarla Verma.”

12. In Sarla Verma (supra), at paragraph-19 a two-JudgeBench 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 ofactive career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected.This does not mean ascertaining the number of years hewould have lived or worked out for the accident havingregard to several imponderables in life and economicfactors, a table of multipliers with reference to be age hasbeen identified by this Court. The multiplier should bechosen from the said table with reference to the age of thedeceased.”

Considering the aforementioned principle expounded in SarlaVerma (supra), which has been affirmed by the Constitution Bench ofthis Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethiand Ors.[4], the appellants are justified in insisting for applying multiplier18.

5. A priori, we direct the respondents to pay compensation byapplying 18 multiplier, instead of 14 applied by the High Court. In otherwords, considering the amount of annual contribution to the deceased’sfamily determined at Rs.37,800/- and applying multiplier 18, thecompensation would work out to Rs.6,80,400/- (Rupees six lakh eightythousand four hundred only), instead of Rs. 5,29,200/- determined by theHigh Court. The amount of compensation under other heads determinedby the High Court in paragraph 5 of the impugned judgment would remain 4 AIR 2017 SC 5157

AB

C

DE

F

G

H

Aundisturbed. The rate of interest is, however, modified to 9% (ninepercent) per annum instead of 6% per annum granted by the Tribunaland High Court. The order passed by the High Court stands modified tothe aforementioned extent.

6. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in the aforementioned termsBwith no order as to costs.

Devika Gujral

Appeal allowed.

C

D

E

F

G

H