SUBE SINGH AND ANR.versusSHYAM SINGH (DEAD) AND ORS.

636                     [2018]REPORTS
              SUPREME COURT    1 S.C.R. 636               [2018] 1 S.C.R.


A                         SUBE SINGH AND ANR.
                                      v.
                    SHYAM SINGH (DEAD) AND ORS.
                        (Civil Appeal No. 7176 of 2015)
B                           FEBRUARY 09, 2018
             [DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
                     DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
            Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: s.166 – Multiplier – Fatal accident
      – Victim aged 23 years – High Court applied multiplier of 14 for
C     determining compensation amount in reference to the age of parents
      of the deceased – Parents of the deceased seeking multiplier of 18
      – Held: In Sarla Verma case, it was held that the multiplier should
      be chosen from the table with reference to the age of the deceased
      and not the age of the dependents – In view of the said decision,
D     multiplier of 18 to be applied for paying compensation to the
      appellants-parents.
            Allowing the appeal, the Court
            HELD: The respondents are directed to pay compensation
      by applying 18 multiplier, instead of 14 applied by the High Court.
E     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/- determined by
      the High Court. [Para 5] [639-F-G]
            Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others v. Delhi Transport
F           Corporation And Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 : [2009] 5
            SCR 1098; Munna Lal Jain and Anr. v. Vipin Kumar
            Sharma and Ors. (2015) 6 SCC 347 : [2015] 7 SCR
            207 – relied on.
            Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi v. Ramkaran Ramchandra
G           Sharma and Anr. (2015) 2 SCC 180 – referred to.
                             Case Law Reference
            (2015) 2 SCC 180        referred to             Para 1
            [2009] 5 SCR 1098       relied on               Para 3
H           [2015] 7 SCR 207        relied on               Para 3
                                     636
SUBE SINGH AND ANR. v. SHYAM SINGH (DEAD) AND ORS.                            637


      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7176                     A
of 2015.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 02.12.2014 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in F. A. O. No. 330 of 2012
(O&M).
      Rakesh Kumar Yadav (For Dr. Kailash Chand), Advs. for the               B
Appellants.
         Chander Shekhar Ashri, Adv. for the Respondents.
         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
        A. M. KHANWILKAR, J. 1. The sole question to be answered              C
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.1?                                                  D
       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
                                                                              E
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             F
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
                                                                              G
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
1
    2015 (2) SCC 180                                                          H
638               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2018] 1 S.C.R.


A     placed on the decision in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others Vs. Delhi
      Transport Corporation And Anr.2. 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.3, which has restated
      the legal position that multiplier should depend on the age of the deceased
      and not on the age of the dependents.
B
              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
C     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
D     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
E              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
F              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
G                 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
      2
          2009 (6) SCC 121
      3
H         2015 (6) SCC 347
SUBE SINGH AND ANR. v. SHYAM SINGH (DEAD) AND ORS.                             639
              [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

            deceased. (b) income of the deceased; and (c) the number           A
            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
                                                                               B
            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 paragraph-19 a two-Judge
         Bench dealt with this aspect in Step 2. To quote:
                                                                               C
            “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             D
            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        E
            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.4, the appellants are justified in insisting for applying multiplier   F
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
                                                                               G
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
4
    AIR 2017 SC 5157
                                                                               H
640              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2018] 1 S.C.R.


A     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
B     with no order as to costs.


      Devika Gujral                                             Appeal allowed.



C




D




E




F




G




H