Motor Vehicles Accident – Calculation of a multiplier – Where there is death of a person, who is a bachelor, in that case the multiplier is to be calculated on basis of the age of deceased or age of the dependents – Appellant contended that it is the age of the dependents which has to be taken into account – Held: This issue is settled by the judgments of three Judge Bench of Supreme Court in Sube Singh & Anr. v. Shyam Singh (Dead) & Ors., Munna Lal Jain & Anr. v. Vipin Kumar Sharma & Ors., Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr. and also judgment of the Constitution Bench in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. that it is the age of the deceased which has to be taken into account and not the age of the dependents – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s.140.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1. The judicial pronouncements of this Court have endeavoured to devise a standard formula, so far as possible, in respect of the calculation of the amount of compensation qua various components. The amount of compensation determined is to be paid to the claimants who are dependents in case of a death of a person based on what the deceased would have contributed to their support. The amount thus received by the dependents in turn 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 a multiplier to be applied in such a situation. In the context of liability to pay compensation on the principle of no fault, as enunciated under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, thus, it was observed by this Court that even if there is no loss of dependency, the quantification cannot be below that amount and to that extent the amount would form a part of the estate of the deceased.[Para 8][946-C-E]
2. The focus for determination of such claim is the deceased and what would be his contribution towards the dependents would he to be alive, for the benefits of the dependents. It is trite to say, and in fact conceded by the learned counsel for the insurance company, that in case the deceased is a married person, it is the age of the deceased which is to be taken into account. The question is whether in case the deceased is a bachelor, a different principle for calculation of the multiplier should be applied by shifting the focus to the age of the claimants? This Court is of the view that the answer to this question should be in the negative. [Para 9][946-F-G]
3. A reading of the judgment in Sube Singh & Anr. v. Shaym Singh (Dead) & Ors. 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 & Anr. v. Vipin Kumar Sharma & Ors. 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 & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr. The relevant portion of Reshma Kumari in turn has referred to Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. 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 Reshma Kumari categorically states that it does not want to revisit the law settled in Sarla Verma case in this behalf. [Para 11][947-A-D]
Sube Singh & Anr. v. Shaym Singh (Dead) & Ors. (2018) 3 SCC 18 : [2018] 1 SCR 636;
Munna Lal Jain & Anr. v. Vipin Kumar Sharma & Ors. (2015) 6 SCC 347 : [2015] 7 SCR 207 ; Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr. (2013) 9 SCC 65 : [2013] 2 SCR 706 – relied on.
Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 : [2009] 5 SCR 1098 – referred to.
4. Thus, 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. [Para 13][947-E-F]
C.A.No.1953/2019 @ SLP(C)NO.19797/2015
5. In view of the judgment delivered in Civil Appeal No.6600/2015 titled as M/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Mandala Yadagari Gold & Ors., opining that it is the age of the deceased and not such of the dependents in case of the death of a bachelor which is to be the basis for the multiplier. [Para 17][948-B-C]
C.A.No.178/2017
6. In view of the judgment delivered in Civil Appeal No.6600/2015 titled as M/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mandala Yadagari Gold & Ors., the multiplier in the present case will be 16, and not as per the impugned order, based on the age of the deceased. [Para 18][948-D] National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 – followed.
New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Shanti Pathak (Smt.) & Ors. (2007) 10 SCC 1 : [2007] 8 SCR 237; Manjuri Bera (Smt) v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. And Anr. (2007) 10 SCC 643 : [2007] 4 SCR 590 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.