KUNJAN SADANA & ANR.versusMAHESH KUMAR & ORS

1128                       [2019]
                SUPREME COURT     17 S.C.R. 1128
                               REPORTS                     [2019] 17 S.C.R.


 A                        KUNJAN SADANA & ANR.
                                        v.
                          MAHESH KUMAR & ORS
                         (Civil Appeal No. 9312 of 2019)
 B                           DECEMBER 10, 2019
                 [S. ABDUL NAZEER AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
             Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:
              Fatal accident – Of a 19 years old bachelor – Caused by
 C     motor vehicle – Claim for compensation by mother and brother of
       deceased – Compensation awarded by Tribunal and High Court
       by using multiplier of 15 on the basis of the age of claimant/mother
       – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: Multiplier of 15 was wrongly
       applied by adopting the age of the dependant and not the deceased
 D     – High Court was also wrong in not considering future prospects
       of the deceased – In view of the age of the deceased, an additional
       40% of the established income must be added while computing the
       compensation – Thus, taking the multiplier of 18, considering the
       future prospects of the deceased, and granting further amount
       under conventional heads, the compensation amount is further
 E     enhanced.
             Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
             HELD: 1. The High Court while enhancing the
       compensation, did not consider the future prospects of the
       deceased. The material on record makes it evident that the
 F
       deceased was self-employed. As the deceased was aged 19
       years, an additional 40% of the established income must be
       added while computing the compensation. In addition, 50% of
       the said amount has to be deducted in lieu of his personal
       expenses that he would have incurred to maintain himself as a
 G     bachelor, had he been alive. [Paras 8 and 9] [1131-B-C-E]
             National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi
             and Others (2017) 16 SCC 680 – followed.
             2. The High Court has rightly determined monthly salary
       of the deceased at Rs. 3,918. In addition, 40% of the actual
 H
                                      1128
   KUNJAN SADANA & ANR. v. MAHESH KUMAR & ORS                          1129


salary income of the deceased has to be added towards the future       A
prospects of the deceased, as his age was less than 40 years.
[Para 12] [1133-E]
     3. The High Court applied the multiplier at ‘15’, as it took
the age of the mother into consideration, and not that of the
deceased. Even if the deceased is a bachelor, his age has to be        B
taken into account to adopt a multiplier. [Para 10] [1131-F-G]
      Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited
      v. Mandala Yadagari Goud and Others (2019) 5 SCC
      554- relied on.
      4. Since the deceased was a bachelor, 50% of his gross           C
income must be deducted towards personal living expenses.
Thus, the compensation payable to the claimants towards loss
of dependency is Rs. 5,92,488/-(Rs.2,743 x 12 x 18 = Rs.
5,92,488/-). In addition, the claimants are also entitled for a sum
of Rs.70,000/- under the conventional heads. Thus, the total
                                                                       D
compensation payable to the claimants comes to Rs. 6,62,448/-
. The amount of Rs. 5,02,620/- awarded by the High Court, has
to be deducted from the aforesaid amount, therefore, the balance
compensation payable to the claimants comes to Rs.1,59,868/-,
which is rounded off to Rs. 1,60,000/-. The third respondent/
insurance company is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/        E
- with simple interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date
of the claim petition till the date of deposit. [Paras 12-14] [1132-
F-H; 1133-A-B]
                      Case Law Reference
(2017) 16 SCC 680                followed             Para 8           F
(2019) 5 SCC 554                 relied on            Para 10
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9312
of 2019.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 08.08.2017 of the High         G
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in MAC. Appeal No. 479 of 2009
     Rahul Mohod, Raju Sonkar, Sanjay Saini, Shekhar Aggarwal,
Karunakar Mahalik, Advs. for the Appellants.
      Dr. Anand Vardhan Sharma, Amit Tyagi, V.K. Vashudev, Kailash
Prashad Pandey, Advs. for the Respondents.                             H
1130             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2019] 17 S.C.R.


 A           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
             S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.
             1. Delay condoned.
             2. Leave granted.
 B            3. The instant appeal has been filed by the claimants challenging
       the judgment and order dated 08.08.2017 of the High Court of Delhi,
       in MAC Appeal No.479 of 2009 wherein the High Court has partly
       allowed the appeal and consequently enhanced the amount of
       compensation from Rs 3,72,620/- to Rs 5,02,620/-. The appellants have
       filed this appeal, seeking further enhancement of the compensation.
 C
              4. The appellants are the widowed mother and the younger
       brother (a minor) of the deceased. The deceased namely, Shri Yitesh
       Sadana alias Prince, a bachelor, aged 19 years, succumbed to injuries
       that he sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on
       18.04.2007, which was caused due to the negligence of the driver of a
 D     bus, bearing registration No DL-1PA-4403. It is admitted that the
       offending vehicle was insured with New India Assurance Co Ltd, the
       third respondent herein, for third party risk. As mentioned above, the
       claim petition was allowed in part, by the Tribunal by Award dated
       06.06.2009. Thereafter, the appeal filed by the appellants was partly
       allowed by the High Court.
 E
               5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that
       the deceased was aged 19 years, therefore, the multiplier applicable
       for this age group is ‘18’. However, the Tribunal and the High Court
       have adopted the multiplier ‘15’, on the basis of the age of the mother
       of the deceased. In addition, it is also submitted that the High Court
 F     failed to consider the future prospects, while awarding the compensation.
       The learned counsel appearing for the insurer has sought to justify the
       impugned judgment and order herein.
             6. Summary of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal: -
             Sl No:        Details                      Amount
 G
             1             Loss of Dependency           Rs.3,52,620.00
             2             Funeral Expenses             Rs. 5,000.00
             3             Loss of Estate,              Rs.15,000.00
                           Love & Affection
 H                         TOTAL                         Rs.3,72,620.00
      KUNJAN SADANA & ANR. v. MAHESH KUMAR & ORS                              1131
                 [S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.]

      7. While calculating the loss of dependency at Rs. 3,52,620/-, the      A
Tribunal considered the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,918/- per month.
The age of the mother i.e. 42 years was considered, in order to apply
the multiplier ‘15’. In addition, as the deceased was a bachelor, the
Tribunal has reduced 50% of his salary in lieu of his personal expenses.
The High Court had enhanced the award to Rs. 5,02,610/-.
                                                                              B
      8. The High Court while enhancing the compensation, did not
consider the future prospects of the deceased. The material on record
makes it evident that the deceased was self-employed. The Constitution
Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited v.
Pranay Sethi and Others1, has considered the issue in relation to future
prospects, while granting the compensation. It was held as under:-            C
         “59.4 In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed
         salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should
         be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of
         40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between
         the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was             D
         between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the
         necessary method of computation. The established income means
         the income minus the tax component.”
                                                      (emphasis supplied)
       9. In the instant case, as the deceased was aged 19 years, an          E
additional 40% of the established income must be added while
computation of the compensation. In addition, 50% of the said amount
has to be deducted in lieu of his personal expenses, that he would have
incurred to maintain himself as a bachelor, had he been alive.
      10. Further, the High Court applied the multiplier at ‘15’, as it       F
took the age of the mother into consideration, and not that of the
deceased. A three-Judge Bench of this Court, in Royal Sundaram
Alliance Insurance Company Limited v. Mandala Yadagari Goud
and Others2, held that even if the deceased is a bachelor, his age has
to be taken into account to adopt a multiplier. The question for              G
consideration in this case was as under:
         “The only legal issue canvassed before us in these matters, which
         are in the nature of cross-appeals, is that in the case of a motor
1
    (2017) 16 SCC 680
2
    (2019) 5 SCC 554                                                          H
1132            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 17 S.C.R.


 A           accident where there is death of a person, who is a bachelor,
             whether the age of the deceased or the age of the dependents
             would be taken into account for calculating the multiplier.”
             This question was answered in the following terms:
             “12. We are convinced that there is no need to once again take
 B           up this issue settled by the aforesaid judgments of three-Judge
             Benches 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.”
            11. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra) has also
 C     awarded compensation under the conventional heads as under: -
             “59.8 Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss
             of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be
             Rs.15,000, Rs.40,000 and Rs.15,000 respectively. The aforesaid
             amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three
 D           years.”
              12. We are of the view that the High Court has rightly determined
       monthly salary of the deceased at Rs. 3,918. In addition, 40% of the
       actual salary income of the deceased has to be added towards the future
       prospects of the deceased, as his age was less than 40 years. Therefore,
 E     the gross income of the deceased must be calculated as:
                    a. Before Deducting the personal living expenses:
                       Rs. 3,918 + (40% of the monthly income i.e
                       Rs. 1567/-) = Rs. 5,485/-
 F           Since the deceased was a bachelor, 50% of his gross income
       must be deducted towards personal living expenses which must be
       calculated as:
                    b. Rs.5,485 – (50% of 5485) = Rs. 2,743/-
              Thus, the compensation payable to the claimants towards loss
 G     of dependency is Rs. 5,92,488/-(Rs.2,743 x 12 x 18 = Rs. 5,92,488/-).
       In addition, the claimants are also entitled for a sum of Rs.70,000/- under
       the conventional heads. Thus, the total compensation payable to the
       claimants comes to Rs. 6,62,448/-.
             13. The amount of Rs. 5,02,620/- awarded by the High Court,
 H     has to be deducted from the aforesaid amount, therefore, the balance
   KUNJAN SADANA & ANR. v. MAHESH KUMAR & ORS                                  1133
              [S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.]

compensation payable to the claimants comes to Rs. 1,59,868/-, which           A
is rounded off to Rs. 1,60,000/-.
       14. As a result, the appeal succeeds and is partly allowed. The
third respondent/insurance company is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.
1,60,000/- with simple interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the
date of the claim petition till the date of deposit. The respondent/           B
insurance company is further directed to deposit the aforesaid amount
before the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of
receipt of the copy of this judgment. The first appellant is permitted to
withdraw the said amount.
       15. There will be no orders as to costs.                                C


Kalpana K. Tripathy                                   Appeal partly allowed.



                                                                               D




                                                                               E




                                                                               F




                                                                               G




                                                                               H