HARESH SHANTILAL AVLANI & ANRversusTHE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

          [2024] 3 S.C.R. 1009 : 2024 INSC 251

             Haresh Shantilal Avlani & Anr.
                          v.
           The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
             (Civil Appeal No. 4029-4030 of 2024)
                          12 March 2024
    [Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.]

                     Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to fixing of the age of the deceased for applying a
multiplier for the purposes of computing the compensation payable
to the claimants.

                            Headnotes
Motor Vehicles Act, 1986 – Compensation – Determination of –
Calculation of multiplier, on basis of the age of the deceased
or the age of the dependents:
Held: It is the age of the deceased which ought to be taken into
consideration and not the age of the dependents for arriving at the
multiplier – High Court erred in returning findings to the effect that
the age of dependents of the deceased ought to be the relevant
consideration for arriving at the choice of the multiplier. [Para 5]

                         Case Law Cited
     Sube Singh and Another v. Shyam Singh (Dead) and
     Others [2018] 1 SCR 636 : (2018) 3 SCC 18; Munna
     Lal Jain and Another v. Vipin Kumar Sharma and Others
     [2015] 7 SCR 207 : (2015) 6 SCC 347; Reshma Kumari
     and Others v. Madan Mohan and Another [2013] 2 SCR
     706 : (2013) 9 SCC 65; Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others
     v. DTC and Another [2009] 5 SCR 1098 : (2009) 6
     SCC 121; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi
     and Other [2017] 13 SCR 100 : (2017) 16 SCC 680;
     Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited
     v. Mandala Yadagari Goud and Others [2019] 6 SCR
     941 : (2019) 5 SCC 554 – relied on.

                         List of Keywords
Compensation; Multiplier; Age of the deceased; Age of the
dependents.
1010                                                         [2024] 3 S.C.R.

                            Digital Supreme Court Reports


                                 Case Arising From
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4029-4030 of
      2024
      From the Judgment and Order dated 19.10.2016 and 25.10.2016
      of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in FAN No. 756 of 2016
      With
      Civil Appeal No. 4031 of 2024
                              Appearances for Parties
      Shantanu M. Adkar, Pravin Satale, Rishabh Jain, Rajiv Shankar
      Dvivedi, S K Sarkar, Shivaji M. Jadhav, Ms. Apurva, Adarsh Kumar
      Pandey, Vignesh Singh, Dipesh Singhal, M/S. S.M. Jadhav and
      Company, Advs. for the Appellants.
      Anshum Jain, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Ranjan Kumar Pandey,
      K.K. Bhat, Advs. for the Respondent.
                     Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
                                       Order
1.    Leave granted.
2.    The issue raised in these appeals relates to fixing of the age of the
      deceased for applying a multiplier for the purposes of computing the
      compensation payable to the claimants.
3.    The appellants (parents of the deceased, Kartik Avlani) in Civil
      Appeals @ Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.13093
      of 2017 are aggrieved by the judgement dated 19th October, 2016,
      passed by the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court,
      whereby the appeal filed by the respondent-Insurance Company
      challenging its liability to pay compensation was partly allowed and
      the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
      Mumbai1, vide order dated 10th July, 2015, estimated as ₹20,70,000/-
      (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Seventy Thousand) with interest @ 7.5%
      per annum from the date of filing of the petition, till realization, was
      slashed to ₹12,82,500/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Eighty Two Thousand



1    For short the ‘MACT’
[2024] 3 S.C.R.                                                             1011

     Haresh Shantilal Avlani & Anr. v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.


       and Five Hundred) on accepting the plea taken by the respondent
       – Insurance Company that in the case of an unmarried person, it is
       not the age of the deceased, but the age of the parents, who are
       the claimants, that should be relevant. In the instant case, the age
       of the deceased was 23 years at the time of the accident and it was
       proved that he was working as a Manager in an investment firm.
4.     In Civil Appeal @ Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.
       13072 of 2017, the age of the deceased (Nilesh Arun Patil) was 28
       years. The claimants are the parents and brothers of the deceased.
       The MACT assessed the income of the deceased as ₹4,000/- (Rupees
       Four Thousand) per month and applied a multiplier of 17. After
       extending the benefit of future prospects and loss of dependency,
       the compensation awarded by the MACT was fixed at ₹6,37,000/-
       (Rupees Six Lakhs Thirty Seven Thousand) with interest @ 7.5 %
       from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation. In an appeal
       preferred by the appellants before the High Court, vide impugned
       judgement dated 10th January, 2017, the High Court reassessed the
       income of the deceased and enhanced it to ₹12,194/- (Rupees Twelve
       Thousand One Hundred and Ninety Four) per month. However, the
       High Court interfered with the multiplier applied by the MACT and
       instead of applying the multiplier of 17, reduced it to 13. The reason
       for the High Court to have changed the multiplier from 17 to 13
       was that the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants being his
       parents, the choice of multiplier had to be assessed on the basis of
       the age of the parents and not the age of the deceased. As a result,
       the amount awarded by the High Court was ₹14,29,000/- (Rupees
       Fourteen Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand) with interest @ 7.5 % per
       annum.
5.     We may note that the issue as to whether the age of the deceased
       that ought to be taken into consideration for calculation of the
       estimated compensation and not the age of the dependents, is no
       longer res integra. There are series of decisions of this Court in Sube
       Singh and Another v. Shyam Singh (Dead) and Others2, Munna
       Lal Jain and Another v. Vipin Kumar Sharma and Others3 and



2     [2018] 1 SCR 636 : (2018) 3 SCC 18
3     [2015] 7 SCR 207 : (2015) 6 SCC 347
1012                                                       [2024] 3 S.C.R.

                            Digital Supreme Court Reports


      Reshma Kumari and Others v. Madan Mohan and Another4, where
      it has been held that it is the age of the deceased and not the age
      of the parents that would be the clinching factor for calculating the
      multiplier to be applied for estimating the compensation payable to
      the claimants. The aforesaid decisions were followed Sarla Verma
      (Smt.) and Others v. DTC and Another5. The Constitution Bench
      in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and
      Other6 has also been referred to in Sube Singh (supra) on the
      aspect of calculation of the multiplier applicable in such a case. A
      recent decision in the case of Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance
      Company Limited Vs. Mandala Yadagari Goud and Others7 has
      reiterated the same position as observed in the cases cited above.
      We are, therefore, of the opinion that it is the age of the deceased
      which ought to be taken into consideration and not the age of the
      dependents for arriving at the multiplier and the High Court has erred
      in returning findings to the effect that the age of dependents of the
      deceased ought to be the relevant consideration for arriving at the
      choice of the multiplier.
6.    Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 19th October, 2016, in Civil
      Appeal @ Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.13093 of
      2017, in respect of FAO No. 756 of 2016 is quashed and set aside
      and the judgement dated 10th July, 2015, passed by the learned
      MACT fixing the multiplier of 18 in the instant case is restored. The
      respondent–Insurance Company is directed to pay the balance
      amount along with up-to-date interest after adjusting the amounts
      already paid to the appellants. The said amount shall be deposited
      with the MACT within six weeks.
7.    Similarly, the impugned judgment dated 10th January, 2017 in Civil
      Appeal @ Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.13072 of
      2017 in respect of First Appeal No. 50 of 2016 is modified to the
      extent that the multiplier shall be applied as assessed by the MACT
      as 17. The MACT shall recalculate the amount payable by the
      respondent no.2-Insurance Company to the appellants by replacing


4    [2013] 2 SCR 706 : (2013) 9 SCC 65
5    [2009] 5 SCR 1098 : (2009) 6 SCC 121
6    [2017] 13 SCR 100 : (2017) 16 SCC 680
7    [2019] 6 S.C.R. 941 : (2019) 5 SCC 554
[2024] 3 S.C.R.                                                        1013

     Haresh Shantilal Avlani & Anr. v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.


       the multiplier from 13 to 17. After adjusting the amount already paid
       by the respondents the balance amount shall be deposited by the
       respondent no.2-Insurance Company within six weeks.
8.     The appeals are allowed and disposed of on the above terms.


       Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain                  Result of the case:
                                                         Appeals disposed of.