Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: s.166 – Multiplier in case of a bachelor – Appellants are parents of the victim-deceased – The case of the appellants was that on the fateful day, victim-deceased was travelling as a pillion rider of a two-wheeler – The two-wheeler dashed against stationary truck standing in the middle of the road – Both the driver and the pillion rider died on the spot – Victimdeceased was 21 years old at the time of accident – MACT assessed notional income of the deceased at Rs.16246 p.m. and a multiplier of 15 based on the age of mother of the deceased and accordingly determined compensation – High Court reduced compensation by assessing notional income of the deceased at Rs.7500 p.m. – Appeal by parents of the deceased for enhancement of compensation – Held: Multiplier is to be applied on the basis of the age of the deceased, and not on the basis of the age of the dependants – In the instant case, since the deceased was 21 years old, the Multiplier would be 18 as per the table set out in the Sarla Verma case – Further, High Court erred in reducing the notional income of the deceased from Rs. 16,246/- as awarded by the MACT to Rs. 7,500/- – The deceased was a trained swimmer who had won several State-level competitions and certainly had the potential to earn a living by utilizing his skills – In such circumstances, notional monthly income of the deceased fixed at Rs. 12,000/- – Further, addition of Future Prospects made at 40% of the notional income of the deceased, as per the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi – The amounts awarded by the High Court under the heads of loss of love and affection, loss of estate, funeral expenses, and the Interest awarded by the MACT, are however, maintained. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. There are a catena of judgments rendered by this Court, wherein it has been held that the Multiplier has to be applied on the basis on the age of the deceased, and not on the basis of the age of the dependants. [Para 4] [621-D]
Munna Lal Jain & Ors. v. Vipin Kumar Sharma & Ors. (2015) 6 SCC 347 : [2015] 7 SCR 207 ; National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 ; Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mandala Yadagari Goud & Ors. (2019) 5 SCC 554 – followed.
Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 : [2009] 5 SCR 1098 ; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Pathak & Ors. (2007)
10 SCC 1 : [2007] 8 SCR 237 ; Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 65 : [2013] 2 SCR 706 ; Amrit Bhanu Shali & Ors. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., (2012) 11 SCC 738 : [2012]
5 SCR 207 ; Sube Singh & Ors. v. Shyam Singh
(dead) & Ors. (2018) 3 SCC 18 : [2018] 1 SCR 636 – relied on.
2. In the instant case, since the deceased was 21 years old, the Multiplier of 18 was applicable as per the table set out in the Sarla Verma case. The deceased was a trained swimmer who had won several State-level competitions. His mother runs a Swimming/Gym Centre at Air Force Station (Central School), Gurgaon. Therefore, the deceased certainly had the potential to earn a living by utilizing his skills. In such circumstances, it is appropriate to fix the notional income of the deceased @Rs. 12,000/- p.m. The Courts below failed to grant Future Prospects @40% of the notional income of the deceased, as per the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi. The amounts awarded by the High Court under the heads of loss of love and affection, loss of estate, funeral expenses, and the Interest awarded by the MACT, are however, maintained. [Paras 4.8- 4.11] [624-E-H; 625-A-B]
Case Law Refcrence
relied on
Para 3.1
relied on
Para 3.3
relied on
Para 4.2
followed
Para 4.3
followed
Para 4.4
relied on
Para 4.5
(2017) 16 SCC 680
followed
Para 4.6
(2019) 5 SCC 554
followed
Para 4.7
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.