Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Ss. 166 & 168 - Multiplier should depend on age of the deceased and not on age of the dependants.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
(Dipak Misra, CJI.) (A.M. Khanwilkar) (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud) JJ.
February 09, 2018
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 Anr., 2015 (2) SCC 180?
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 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 Modi (supra). Resultantly, the appellants
have filed the present appeal, questioning the correctness of the conclusion so
reached by the High Court.
3. According to the appellants, the correct
multiplier to be applied in the facts of the present case is 18, as the
deceased 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 And Anr., 2009 (6) SCC 121. Reliance is also placed on the recent
judgment of this Court (Three Judge Bench) in the case of Munna Lal Jain and Anr. Vs.
Vipin Kumar Sharma and Ors., 2015 (6) SCC 347 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 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 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
twoJudge 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 Verma (supra),
which has been affirmed by the Constitution Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company Ltd.
Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., AIR 2017 SC 5157 the
appellants are justified in insisting for applying multiplier 18.
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.
Comments
Post a Comment