Bombay High Court
The New India Assurance Co. ... vs Shri. Nagindas Gopalji Rachh And ... on 19 October, 2016
Bench: Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi
vks
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO.738 of 2015
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1196 OF 2015
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO.738 of 2015
United India Insurance Company Ltd. ] Appellant
Through its Regional office, ] Original
Bharti Vidyapeeth Bhavan, L. B. Shastri Road ] Opponent
Near Alka Talkies, Pune ] No.2
Versus
1. Sobha Amarsingh Rajput ig ]
age: 50 years, Occn. Household ] Respondent
] No.1
2. Shri. Amarsingh Narayansingh Rajput (deleted) ] Original
age: 50 years, Occn. Service ] Applicant
] No.1
No.1 residing at: P.12/1, Type III Quarters ]
Nirishanyihar, Raja Road ]
Khadki, Pune 411 003 ]
]
3. Mr. Dnyaneshwar Dhondu Kurhade ] Respondent
age: adult, Occn. Business ] No.1
r/o Ale, Tal. Junnar, District: Pune. ] Original
] Opponent No.1
ALONG WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.750 OF 2016
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1770 OF 2016
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO.750 of 2015
The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. ]
Warden House, DO-112500, 4th floor ]
Sir P.M. Road, Fort, Mumbai ] Appellant
Police No.11250031100100206219 ] Original
valid from 17.11.2010 to 16.11.2011. ] Insurer.
Through: Mumbai Regional Office-I, ]
1/67
FA-738-15-Group.doc
::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2016 00:55:22 :::
New India Bhavan, 1st Floor, 34/38, ]
Bank street, Fort, Mumbai 400 023 ]
Versus
1. Nagindas Gopalji Rachh ]
age: 57 years, Father of deceased ] Respondent
] Nos. 1 & 2.
2. Mrs. Priti Nagindas Rachh ] Original
age: 48 years, Mother of deceased ] Applicants.
]
both r/o 13-A, Smita Building ]
Plot No.172, R.B. Mehta Road, ]
Ghatkopar (E) Mumbai 400 077 ]
]
3. M/s Dhanlaxmi Transport ] Respondent
R/2, Nityanand Auto Services,Kherpada
ig ] No.3
Ghansoli, Vasai, District:Thane ] Ori. Opponent.
ALONG WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 756 OF 2016
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1774 OF 2016
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 756 OF 2016
The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. ]
Warden House, DO-112500, 4th floor ]
Sir P.M. Road, Fort, Mumbai ] Appellant
Police No.11250031100100206219 ] Original
valid from 17.11.2010 to 16.11.2011. ] Insurer.
Through: Mumbai Regional Office-I, ]
New India Bhavan, 1st Floor, 34/38, ]
Bank street, Fort, Mumbai 400 023 ]
Versus
1. Shri. Haresh Shantilal Avlani ]
age: 55 yars, father of deceased ] Respondent
] Nos 1 & 2
2. Mrs. Rekha Haresh Avlani, ]Original
Age: 53 years, Mother of deceased ] Applicants.
Both r/o 3, Sun Floor Building, Gr. Floor ]
Near Rajawadi Garden, Ghatkopar (E) ]
Mumbai 400 077. ]
2/67
FA-738-15-Group.doc
::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2016 00:55:22 :::
3. M/s Dhanlaxmi Transport ] Respondent
R/2, Nityanand Auto Services,Kherpada ] No.3
Ghansoli, Vasai, District.Thane ] Ori.opponent.
Mr. Ketan Joshi, for the Appellant in F.A. NO.738 of 2015.
Mr. Devendranath S. Joshi, for Appellant in F.A.No.750/2016 and in F.A.
756 of 2016.
Mr. Rajeev Carvalo a/w Mr. Rupesh M. Geeta a/w Mr. Anand Chovatia for
respondent No.1 in F.A.No.738 of 2015
Mr. T.J. Mendon, for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in F.A.No.750 of 2016 and F.A.
No.756 of 2016.
CORAM
ig : DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.
RESERVED ON : 28TH SEPTEMBER, 2016.
PRONOUNCED ON : 19TH OCTOBER, 2016.
JUDGMENT :
i. What could be the just and reasonable amount of
compensation which the Claims Tribunal constituted
under Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(for short called as, " M.V. Act") can award?
ii. Which are the relevant parameters to be considered
by the Claims Tribunal in that regard?
iii. In case of death of an unmarried person, whether
multiplier to be applied is to be based on the age of
the deceased or age of the claimants?
FA-738-15-Group.doc
iv. Whether the future prospects of the income of the
deceased need to be considered in arriving at the
pecuniary loss of the dependents, and if yes, how to
assess the same?
1. These are some of the pertinent questions, that are raised for
consideration, in these three appeals.
2. In view of some of the conflicting decisions of this Court and the
Hon'ble Apex Court, on these issues, learned counsels for the respective
parties have advanced elaborate submissions to assist this Court to come
to its just decision and to resolve the issue to some extent.
3. As these are the common questions of law raised in these three
appeals preferred by the respective Insurance Companies and as the
facts of these appeals are also, more or less, the same, with minor
differences in the particulars here or there, these appeals are heard
together and are being decided together by this common judgment.
4. All the appeals are admitted and with the consent and on the
request made by learned counsels for the parties, they are heard finally
at the stage of admission itself.
FA-738-15-Group.doc
5. Facts relevant for the purpose of deciding these appeals are as
under:-
FIRST APPEAL NO.738 OF 2015
In this appeal, United India Insurance Company, takes an exception
to the Judgment and Award dated 20 th August, 2014, passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal at Pune in M.A.C.P. No.967 of 2011. By the
impugned Judgment and Award, the Tribunal has directed the appellant-
Insurance Company and respondent No.3-the owner of the vehicle, to
pay, jointly and severally, amount of Rs.50,69,000/- to the 1 st and 2nd
respondent - the claimants, by way of compensation with interest at the
rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till
realisation of the entire amount.
6. In this appeal, the claimants are the parents of the deceased
Vijaysingh Amarsingh Rajput, who was a divorcee having no issue and
running the age of 32 years at the time of accident. He was working as
'Executive' in Zensar Technologies Ltd. since 2010 and getting salary of
Rs.40,000/- per month, in addition to the incentives. On 16.8.2011, at
about 9 a.m. he was proceeding from Alandi Road towards his office of
Zensar Techologies at Kharadi on his motorcycle, bearing NO.MH-2/FT-
2020, in a moderate speed and by observing all traffic rules. Near Dighi
FA-738-15-Group.doc
Octroi Check-Post, one petrol tanker, bearing No.MH-12-BJ-6447, came
from opposite direction in a high speed and gave dash to the motorcycle
of the deceased. The wheel of the tanker passed over the head of the
deceased. As a result, the deceased succumbed to the injuries on the
spot itself. Respondent No.1 and 2 in this appeal, who are the parents of
the deceased, hence filed the claim petition against respondent No.3-the
owner of the tanker, and appellant-Insurance Company, claiming
compensation amount of Rs.60,00,000/- on all admissible heads.
7. In support of their case, respondent No.1-mother of the deceased,
examined herself and stated on oath that, at the time of accident,
deceased was earning income of Rs.40,000/- per month. He was working
as 'H.R. Executive' in Zensar Technologies Ltd. since December, 2010.
Prior to that, he was working in WNS Global and SARK Enterprises. He
has also received various awards. Respondent Nos.1 and 2-claimants
have also examined one Mr. Yogesh Gothankar to prove that the
deceased was working in Zensar Technologies Ltd. as 'H.R. Executive'
and his last drawn salary was Rs. 37,990/-. Pay Slip and Pay Certificate
of the deceased were proved, accordingly, vide Exhibit Nos.43 and 44.
8. On the basis of this evidence, considering the salary of deceased,
FA-738-15-Group.doc
after deductions towards income tax, the Tribunal has added 50% amount
of his income towards future prospects and having regard to the age of
the deceased, as that of 40 years, applied multiplier of '12'. The Tribunal,
thus, awarded total compensation of Rs.50,69,000/-, including the amount
of Rs.25,000/-, each, towards loss of love and affection and funeral
expenses, to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum from the date of application till realisation of the entire amount.
FIRST APPEAL NO.750 OF 2016
9. In this appeal, the Judgment and Award dated 9.7.2015 passed by
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai, in M.A.C.P. No.866 of 2011, is
challenged by the New India Assurance Company Ltd. The deceased in
this appeal is a young girl of 22 years, by name, Avani Nagindas Rachh.
On 9.3.2011, she met with fatal accident while she was riding on the pillion
seat of motorcycle No.MH-03-2767, which was driven by her friend Kartik
Avlani along Premier Road from Kurla-Vidyavihar side at moderate speed.
One Motor Tanker, bearing MH-04/CU- 7789, was the offending vehicle.
10. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are the parents of deceased Avani.
They had filed claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation to
the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- under all the permissible heads. In support of
FA-738-15-Group.doc
their claim, they had relied upon the fact that, at the time of accident,
deceased Avani was the student of third year C.A. and working as 'Article
Assistant' with M/s N.G. Thakkar & Company. She was getting monthly
stipend of Rs.7,000/- and, thus, was having very bright future prospects.
The evidence of one Mr. Natwar Gokuldas Thakkar was led to prove
income of the deceased along with her Salary Certificate (Exhibit-38) and
Bank Statement (Exhibit-40). On the basis thereof, the Tribunal held
income of the deceased Avani to be proved as Rs.7,000/- per month and
considering the future prospects of her earning as 'C.A.', the Tribunal
worked out multiplicand of Rs.84,000/- per annum, included therein 50%
towards future prospects, and having regard to the age of deceased as 22
years at the time of accident, applied multiplier of '18'. Thus, the Tribunal
awarded total compensation of Rs.11,07,900/-, including funeral expenses
of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.20,000/- towards loss to the estate, with interest
thereon at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till
realisation of the amount.
FIRST APPEAL NO.756 OF 2016
11. This appeal pertains to the same fatal accident that took place on
9.3.2011, in which deceased Avani, in First Appeal No.750 of 2016, has
lost her life. The deceased in this case, namely, Kartik Avlani was her
FA-738-15-Group.doc
friend, with whom she was proceeding on his motorcycle as pillion rider
from Kurla to Vidyavihar. The said motorcycle was given dash by a Motor
Tanker, bearing No MH-04/CU-7789. His parents, i.e. respondent Nos. 1
and 2 herein, have filed Claim Petition No.867 of 2011 before M.A.C.T.,
Mumbai, by submitting, inter alia, that the deceased, at the time of
accident, was Commerce Graduate and had completed his Diploma
Course in N.S.C. and B.S.C. He was working in Truestone Investment
Advisors Pvt. Ltd and was engaged in share market and drawing
Rs.25,000/- as salary per month. His Income Certificate, issued by the
employer, was filed on record. The Manager of M/s. Truestone Investment
Advisors Pvt. Ltd., Mr. Ranjan J. Sonawane, was also examined to prove
that the deceased was drawing salary of Rs.25,000/- per month; out of
which, Rs.12,500/- was his Basic Pay and Rs.12,500/- was towards
Performance Bonus. The Bank Statement of the deceased to that effect
was also produced on record vide Exhibit-14.
12. Relying on this evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that,
at the time of accident, deceased was earning salary of Rs.12,500/- per
month and, hence, considering his future prospects, added amount of
50% to annual earning of the deceased and applied multiplier of '18',
considering the age of the deceased at the time of accident as between
FA-738-15-Group.doc
21 to 25 years, and awarded total compensation of Rs. 20,70,000/-,
including the amount of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and
Rs.20,000/- towards loss to estate, along with interest at the rate of 7.5%
per annum from the date of application till realisation.
13. The claimants in all these three appeals have not challenged the
Awards. Respective Insurance Companies, i.e. the appellants herein,
however, have challenged the Awards only on two counts. In the first
place, it is submitted that, while deciding the appropriate multiplier, the
Tribunal has considered age of the deceased and not the age of the
claimants, which was higher. It is submitted that, as the compensation
amount is paid to the legal heirs of the deceased on account of their
dependency on the income of the deceased, the multiplier should always
be fixed having regard to the age of the claimants and not the age of the
deceased; when the claimants are the parents of the deceased and the
deceased is a bachelor. It is submitted that, in all these three cases, the
deceased were bachelors and unmarried, whereas the claimants were
parents. Hence, the age of the claimants, which was on higher side,
should have been considered for deciding the multiplier.
14. In support of this submission, learned counsels for the appellants
have relied upon various authorities of this Court and that of Hon'ble Apex
FA-738-15-Group.doc
Court and also drawn attention of this Court to the conflicting decisions by
submitting that the compensation amount has to be just and reasonable.
What is just and reasonable will always depend on the facts of each case.
In case of unmarried bachelor person, it is submitted that, the age of the
parents is the correct criteria for deciding the multiplier, as they can be the
dependent on the income of the deceased only upto their life-time.
Hence, adopting age of the deceased as criteria for deciding multiplier
will be totally against the spirit and object of the law meant for awarding
compensation. It is urged that, the compensation cannot be a bonanza or
a source of profit, which it can become, if the age of the deceased is
considered for deciding the multiplier. According to learned counsels for
the appellants-Insurance Companies, there are decisions and decisions,
taking diverse and conflicting views, but, ultimately, each case needs to be
decided on its facts. In the instant cases, it is urged that the proper way to
decide just compensation amount is to consider the age of the claimants
and not the age of the deceased, while arriving at the correct multiplier.
15. Per contra, learned counsels for the respondents-claimants have
also, relying upon various authorities, submitted that, as per the settled
position of law, the age of the deceased and not the age of the claimants
is to be the deciding factor for arriving at the multiplier. According to them,
FA-738-15-Group.doc
the Tribunal has rightly followed the said view and, hence, no interference
is warranted on this point.
16. The second point, on which learned counsels for the appellants
have challenged the impugned Awards, is the 50% additional amount
included by the trial Court in the annual earnings of the deceased towards
future prospects. According to learned counsels for the appellants-
Insurance Companies, as the deceased Avani, in First Appeal No.750 of
2016, and deceased Kartik, in First Appeal No.756 of 2016, were not in
the permanent employment, the Tribunal has committed a grave error in
making addition of 50% amount to the annual income of Avani and Kartik
towards future prospects.
17. On these two grounds, learned counsels for the appellants-
Insurance Companies have submitted that interference of this Court is
warranted.
18. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants have
supported the Awards on all the counts by submitting that, they fall within
the four corners of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court from time
to time.
FA-738-15-Group.doc
Selection of Multiplier
19. It need not be stated that the Tribunal, constituted under the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, as provided in Section 168, is required to make an
Award determining the amount of compensation, which is to be in the real
sense "damages", which, in turn, appears to it to be "just and reasonable".
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana and Anr Vs.
Jasbir Kaur and Ors1., in paragraph No.7 of its judgment, has observed
as under :-
"7. ... ... ... It has to be borne in mind that
compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be
weighed in golden scales. But at the same time it has
to be borne in mind that the compensation is not
expected to be a windfall for the victim. Statutory
provisions clearly indicate that the compensation must
be "just" and it cannot be a bonanza: not a source of
profit; but the same should not be a pittance. The
Courts and Tribunals have a duty to weigh the various
factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which
should be just. What would be "just" compensation is a
vexed question. There can be no golden rule applicable
to all cases for measuring the value of human life or a
limb. Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by
precise mathematical calculations. It would depend
upon the particular facts and circumstances, and
1 (2003) 7 SCC 484
FA-738-15-Group.doc
attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every
method or mode adopted for assessing compensation
has to be considered in the background of "just"
compensation which is the pivotal consideration.
Though by use of the expression "which appears to it to
be just" a wide discretion is vested on the Tribunal, the
determination has to be rational, to be done by a
judicious approach and not the outcome of whims, wild
guesses and arbitrariness. The expression "just"
denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness, and
non-arbitrary. If it is not so it cannot be just."
20.
Therefore, in order to achieve the uniformity and certainty in the
award of compensation, the Hon'ble Apex Court has, in the celebrated
decision of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport
Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Susamma Thomas (Mrs) and Ors 2,
evolved and accepted well established multiplier method of computation
of compensation amount by observing that,
"The multiplier method is logically sound and well
established method for ensuring a just compensation
which will make for uniformity and certainty of the
awards. A departure from this method can only be
justified in rare and and extraordinary circumstances
and very exceptional cases".
21. It was further held that,
2 (1994) 2 SCC 176
FA-738-15-Group.doc
"The multiplier method involves ascertainment of loss of
dependency or multiplicand having regard to the
circumstances of the case and capitalizing the
multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of
the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased
(or that of the claimants whichever is higher) and by the
calculation as to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of
interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the
multiplicand by way of annual interest. In ascertaining
this, "regard should also be had to the fact that ultimately
the capital sum should also be consumed up over the
period for which the dependency is expected to last".
22. According to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, "the multiplier represents
the number of years' purchase, on which the loss of dependency is
capitalized".
23. While arriving at this decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court also took
note of the two decisions of the House of Lords viz. Davies v. Powell
Duffryn Associated Collheries Ltd3 and Nance v. British Columbia
Electric Railway Co.Ltd.4 to confirm that the multiplier method, being
sound and well established, needs to be adopted invariably for deciding
the just and reasonable amount of compensation.
3 1942 1 AIIER 657
4 1951 AC 601
FA-738-15-Group.doc
24. This decision of the Apex Court in Susamma Thomas (supra) was
further upheld and confirmed in the case of U.P. State Road Transport
Corporation and Ors. Vs. Trilok Chandra and Ors. 5 by the Division
Bench of three-Judges. It was held that,
"Multiplier method for calculating the amount of
compensation is the sound and most reasonable
method and it has also been an accepted method for
determining and ensuring payment of just
compensation. It is necessary to reiterate that the said
method should be applied uniformly so as to bring
certainty to the awards made all over the country".
25. However, in paragraph No.18 of its judgment, in this decision, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to point out that the calculation of
compensation and the amount worked out in the 'Second Schedule' suffer
from several defects. After pointing out such defects in calculation of the
amounts, as given in the 'Second Schedule', it was held by the Hon'ble
Apex Court, in this judgment, as follows :
"18. ................... To put it briefly, the table abounds in such
mistakes. Neither the Tribunals nor the courts can go by
the ready reckoner. It can only be used as a guide.
Besides, the selection of multiplier cannot in all cases
be solely dependent on the age of the deceased. For
5 996 (4) SCC 362
FA-738-15-Group.doc
example, if the deceased, a bachelor, dies at the age of
45 and his dependents are his parents, age of the
parents would also be relevant in the choice of the
multiplier. But these mistakes are limited to actual
calculations only and not in respect of other items. What
we propose to emphasize is that the multiplier cannot
exceed 18 years' purchase factor. This is the
improvement over the earlier position that ordinarily it
should not exceed 16. We thought it necessary to state
the correct legal position as Courts and Tribunals are
using higher multiplier as in the present case where the
Tribunal used the multiplier of 24 which the High Court
raised to 34, thereby showing lack of awareness of the
background of the multiplier system in Davies' case".
[emphasis supplied]
26. The entire emphasis of learned counsels for the appellants in these
appeals is on these observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court that,
"selection of multiplier cannot in all cases be solely dependent on the age
of the deceased, especially if the deceased is a bachelor, then, as held in
this judgment, the age of parents is also relevant."
27. It is submitted that, in the case of Susamma Thomas (supra), it
was held in unequivocal words that choice of the multiplier is determined
by the age of the deceased or that of the claimants, whichever is higher,
and in the case of Trilok Chandra (supra), it is categorically held that, in
FA-738-15-Group.doc
case of death of a bachelor, age of parents is a relevant factor for
determining the multiplier. It is submitted by learned counsels for the
appellants that, this legal position is also in tune to the law laid down in
the case of Susamma Thomas (supra) that the choice of multiplier is to
be determined by the age of the claimants or the age of deceased,
whichever is higher. It is submitted that, as in the case of bachelor, the
parents are the only claimants, their age is bound to be higher. Hence,
their age is relevant for determining the multiplier and not the age of the
deceased, who is a bachelor.
28. Learned counsels for the appellants has then placed reliance on the
judgment in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs.
Laxmi Iyer6 to submit that, in this case also, the Hon'ble Apex Court was
pleased to hold that, where the claimants are the parents of the
deceased, it is not the age of the deceased alone, but that of the
parents/dependents as well, which is relevant. Thus, it is submitted that,
in this case, the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court has followed
the law laid down in the case of Trilok Chandra (supra).
29. It is submitted that the law laid down in the case of Susamma
Thomas (supra) and Trilok Chandra (supra) was followed in the case of
6 (2003) 8 SCC 731
FA-738-15-Group.doc
New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Charlie and Anr 7 and it was
reiterated that the multiplier method involves ascertainment of the loss of
dependency. The 'Second Schedule' to the Act suffers from many defects.
Hence, the same is to serve as a 'Guide', but cannot be an 'Invariable
Ready Reckoner'. As to the choice of multiplier, it was reiterated that, it is
to be determined by the age of the deceased or that of the claimants,
whichever is higher.
30.
Learned counsels for the appellants have then relied upon the
decision of the Division Bench of three-Judges of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shanti Pathak (Smt) and
Others8. In this case, the deceased was a bachelor, running the age of 25
years, at the time of accident. Taking into consideration his age, both, the
Tribunal and the High Court applied the multiplier of '17'. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court, however, accepted the contention of the appellant-
Insurance Company and having regard to the age of the
claimants/parents, which was 65 years, applied the multiplier of '5'. Thus,
it is submitted that, in this case also, the choice of multiplier was based on
the age of the claimants and not the deceased, thereby following the law
laid down in the case of Susamma Thomas (supra) and Trilok Chandra
(supra), though no express reference was made to that decision.
7 (2005) 16 SCC 720
8 (2007) 10 SCC 1
FA-738-15-Group.doc
31. Learned counsels for the appellants have then relied upon the
Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramesh Singh
and Anr. Vs. Satbir Singh and Anr 9. In this case, the deceased was a
bachelor, running the age of 22 years, at the time of accident. The
claimants were the deceased's father and mother; running the age of 55
and 52 years respectively. The Tribunal and the High Court have
considered the age of the parents for choice of multiplier of '8'. Father of
the deceased had challenged the choice of multiplier in the Hon'ble
Supreme Court by contending, inter alia, that, since the age of the
deceased was only 22 years, the multiplier of '16', or, at-least, '11' should
have been applied. In this respect, heavy reliance was placed on the
'Second Schedule' of the Act. After giving conscious consideration to the
submissions advanced before it, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was,
however, pleased to hold that these contentions are devoid of any merit. It
was held that,
"Considering the law laid down in New India
Assurance Co. Ltd Vs. Charlie (supra), it is clear
that the choice of multiplier is determined by the
age of the deceased or the claimants whichever is
higher".
32. It was further held that, the 'Second Schedule' to the Act is to be
9 (2008) 2 SCC 667
FA-738-15-Group.doc
used not only for referring to the age of the victim, but also other factors
relevant therefor, as the complicated questions of facts and law arising in
accident cases cannot be answered all times by relying on mathematical
equations. It was held that,
"Selection of multiplier, as observed in the case of
U.P. S.R.T.C. Vs. Trilok Chandra, cannot in all
cases be solely dependent on the age of the
deceased. If a young man is killed in the accident,
leaving behind aged parents who would not survive
long enough to match with a high multiplier provided
by the Second Schedule, then the court has to offset
such high multiplier and balance the same with the
short life expectancy of the claimants".
[Emphasis Supplied]
33. Accordingly, it was held that, the Courts below had rightly struck the
balance by applying the multiplier of '8', based on the age of the parents,
which was 55 years.
34. Learned counsels for the appellants have then relied on another
landmark decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma
(Smt) and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr 10. In this case,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has quoted with approval following paragraph
Nos.17 and 18 of the judgment in Trilok Chandra (supra), wherein it has
been observed that :-
10 (2009) 6 SCC 121
FA-738-15-Group.doc
"17. ............Section 163A begins with a non obstante clause
and provides for payment of compensation, as indicated
in the Second Schedule, to the legal representatives of
the deceased or injured, as the case may be. Now if we
turn to the Second Schedule, we find a table fixing the
mode of calculation of compensation for third party
accident injury claims arising out of fatal accidents. The
first column gives the age group of the victims of
accident, the second column indicates the multiplier and
the subsequent horizontal figures indicate the quantum
of compensation in thousand payable to the heirs of the
deceased victim. According to this table the multiplier
varies from 5 to 18 depending on the age group to which
the victim belonged. Thus, under this Schedule the
maximum multiplier can be up to 18 and not 16 as was
held in Susamma Thomas case.
18. .......Besides, the selection of multiplier cannot in all
cases be solely dependent on the age of the deceased.
For example, if the deceased, a bachelor, dies at the
age of 45 and his dependents are his parents, age of
the parents would also be relevant in the choice of the
multiplier......What we propose to emphasize is that the
multiplier cannot exceed 18 years' purchase factor. This
is the improvement over the earlier position that
ordinarily it should not exceed 16."
35. The Hon'ble Supreme Court then found that there are different
operative multipliers adopted by the Tribunals and observed as under :-
FA-738-15-Group.doc
"41. Tribunals/courts adopt and apply different operative
multipliers. Some follow the multiplier with reference to
Susamma Thomas (set out in column 2 of the table
above); some follow the multiplier with reference to
Trilok Chandra, (set out in column 3 of the table above);
some follow the multiplier with reference to Charlie (Set
out in column (4) of the Table above); many follow the
multiplier given in second column of the Table in the
Second Schedule of MV Act (extracted in column 5 of
the table above); and some follow the multiplier actually
adopted in the Second Schedule while calculating the
quantum of compensation (set out in column 6 of the
table above). For example if the deceased is aged 38
years, the multiplier would be 12 as per Susamma
Thomas, 14 as per Trilok Chandra, 15 as per Charlie, or
16 as per the multiplier given in column (2) of the
Second schedule to the MV Act or 15 as per the
multiplier actually adopted in the second Schedule to
MV Act. Some Tribunals, as in this case, apply the
multiplier of 22 by taking the balance years of service
with reference to the retiring age. It is necessary to
avoid this kind of inconsistency. We are concerned with
cases falling under Section 166 and not under Section
163A of MV Act. In cases falling under Section 166 of
the MV Act, Davies method is applicable."
36. Thus, the Hon'ble Apex Court has, in this decision, then prepared a
new 'Table' for selection of appropriate multiplier, taking into consideration
the law laid down in Susamma Thomas (supra), Trilok Chandra (supra)
FA-738-15-Group.doc
and Charllie (supra) and further held that, the multiplier to be used
should be as mentioned in Column No.(4) of the 'Table', which starts with
an operative multiplier of '18' for the age group of '15 to 20' years and '21
to 25' years, which would be reduced by one unit for every five years upto
the age group of '46 to 20' years and then would be reduced by two units
for every five years.
37. According to learned counsel for the appellant Shri. Ketan Joshi,
though it is true that, in the new 'Table' prepared by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in this decision, selection of multiplier is based on the age of the
deceased, however, this decision does not expressly deal with the issue in
question, 'as to whether the age of the deceased is to be the determining
factor for choice of multiplier, or, the age of the claimants-parents?'.
According to them, this issue was never raised for consideration in this
authority, as the deceased was a married man and claimants were his
widow, three minor children, parents and grand-father. Hence, according
to them, this decision only reconciles the different multipliers, otherwise
given in earlier cases of Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and
Charlie (supra). But, it does not touch the legal position laid down in the
case of Trilok Chandra (supra) that, selection of multiplier cannot, in all
cases, be solely dependent on the age of the deceased and the age of the
FA-738-15-Group.doc
parents, in case the deceased is a bachelor, is also relevant in the choice
of multiplier. Moreover, according to learned counsels for the appellants,
the decision in this case is of two-Judges Bench, whereas, the decision in
the case of Trilok Chandra (supra) is three-Judges Bench and it is also
followed by another three-Judges Bench in Shanti Pathak (supra) and
two-Judges Bench in Charlie (supra) and Shakti Devi (supra) and hence
it must be relied upon to hold that, in case of death of a bachelor, the
relevant factor for choice of multiplier is the age of the parents and not the
age of the deceased.
38. To substantiate this submission, learned counsels for the appellants
have also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Shakti Devi Vs. New India Insurance Co. Ltd and Anr. 11.
In this case, a mother, who has lost her 22 years old son in a motor
accident, has approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court, being aggrieved by
the inadequate compensation awarded to her. While redressing her
grievance, the Hon'ble Supreme Court once again held that, the multiplier
method should remain the only method, as it has been for assessing the
compensation under the Act. It was further held that, the multiplier method
involved capitalization of the loss of dependency (i.e. multiplicand) by an
appropriate multiplier. For deciding the multiplier, the Hon'ble Apex Court
11 (2010) 14 SCC 575
FA-738-15-Group.doc
then relied upon the 'Table' prepared in the case of Sarla Varma (supra)
and applied the multiplier as mentioned in Column No.4. It was held that,
"Insofar as the multiplier is concerned, the Tribunal
applied the multiplier of 8. The learned counsel for the
appellant argued that the multiplier 18 should have been
applied in view of the age of the deceased to be of 22
years. The argument is devoid of any substance. In a
case where age of the claimant is higher than the age of
the deceased, the age of the claimant and not age of
deceased has to be taken into account for the
capitalization of the of the lost dependency. It is so
because the choice of multiplier is determined by the age
of the deceased or that of the claimant whichever is
higher". [Emphasis Supplied]
39. Accordingly, in this decision, considering the age of the claimant on
the date of accident as about 54-55 years, as per the 'Table' prepared in
the case of Sarla Varma (supra), the multiplier of '11' was applied.
40. Learned counsels for the appellants have, in this respect, also
placed reliance on somewhat recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shyam Singh and
Ors.12., where Hon'ble Supreme Court has followed the three-Judges
Bench decision of Trilok Chandra (supra) and held that, the age of the
12 (2011) 7 SCC 65
FA-738-15-Group.doc
claimants was relevant factor for selection of multiplier and it cannot, in all
the cases, be solely dependent on the age of the deceased. In this
decision, reliance was also placed on the decision in the case of Ramesh
Singh Vs. Satbir Singh (supra) to hold that, choice of the multiplier is
determined by the age of the deceased or the claimants, whichever is
higher. Accordingly, in this case, though the age of the deceased was
only 19 years, the multiplier of '8' selected by the Tribunal, taking the
average age of the parents of the deceased as 55 and 56 years, was held
to be proper and correct. It was held that, "the dictum laid down in
Ramesh Singh Vs. Satbir Singh (supra) was applicable to the present
case on all fours".
41. Learned counsels for the appellants have then made reference to
the two-Judges Bench decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
P.S. Somanathan and Ors Vs. District Insurance Officer and Anr.13. In
this case, the deceased was a bachelor of 33 years. His mother was the
claimant and running the age of 67 years. The Tribunal adopted the
multiplier of '16', depending on the age of the deceased. The High Court
reduced the same to '5', considering the age of the claimant-mother. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court has then, after considering and relying upon the
decisions in Susamma Thomas (supra) , Trilok Chandra (supra) and
13 (2011) 3 SCC 566
FA-738-15-Group.doc
Sarla Verma (supra), observed in paragraph Nos.16 and 17 of its
Judgment as under :-
"16. The High Court unfortunately took a very technical view
in the matter of applying the multiplier. The High Court
cannot keep out of its consideration the claim of the
daughter of the first claimant, since the daughter was
impleaded, and was 49 years of age. Admittedly, the
deceased was looking after the entire family. In
determining the age of the mother, the High Court
should have accepted the age of the mother at 65, as
given in the claim petition, since there is no controversy
on that. By accepting the age of mother at 67, the High
Court further reduced the multiplier from 6 to 5, even if
we accept the reasoning of the High Court to be
correct. The reasoning of the High Court is not correct
in view of the ratio in Sarla Verma. Following the same,
the High Court should have proceeded to compute the
compensation on the age of the deceased. Thus, the
finding of the High Court is contrary to the ratio in Sarla
Verma, which is the leading decision on this question
and which we follow.
17. This Court, therefore, cannot sustain the High Court
judgment and is constrained to set aside the same.
The award of MACT is restored."
42. According to learned counsels for the appellants, in this decision
though the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that, following the ratio in the
FA-738-15-Group.doc
leading decision of Sarla Varma (supra), High Court should have
proceeded to compute the compensation on the age of the deceased,
there is absolutely no discussion for differing with the view taken by three-
judges Bench decision in Trilok Chandra (supra), though the said
decision was referred in this case. Hence, according to learned counsels
for the appellants, the law laid down in Trilok Chandra decision cannot be
said to be distinguished or overruled in any way.
43.
Learned counsels for the appellants have then drawn attention of
this Court to the decision of two-Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Amrit Bhanu Shali and Orss Vs. National Insurance Co.
Ltd and Ors.14 to submit that, in this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has again changed the course of the law by holding that, "the selection of
the multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of
the dependents".
44. According to learned counsels for the appellants, in this case
though the earlier decisions were referred, there was no detail discussion
of those decisions to differ therefrom.
45. In my considered opinion, therefore, it will be useful to refer to the
14 (2012) 11 SCC 738
FA-738-15-Group.doc
facts of this decision. In this case, the deceased was a bachelor of the
age of 26 years. The claimants were his parents. The Tribunal applied the
multiplier of '17' relying on the decision in Sarla Varma (supra). Both the
claimants and the Insurance Company challenged the Award before
Chattisgarh High Court. The High Court applied the multiplier of '13' by
observing that;
"The impugned award of the Tribunal is liable to be modified as
we feel that looking to the age of the deceased as 26 years, the
multiplier of 13 was to be applied according to decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma, but the learned Tribunal
has applied multiplier of 17. Therefore, without changing the
annual income and other amounts as awarded by the Tribunal
on other heads, in our opinion the multiplier of 13 would be
appropriate in the instant case"
46. When the matter reached before the Hon'ble Apex Court, in
paragraph Nos. 15 and 16 of its judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court was
pleased to observe as under :-
"15.The selection of multiplier is based on the age of the
deceased and not on the basis of the age of the
dependent. There may be a number of dependents of the
deceased whose age may be different and, therefore, the
age of the dependents has no nexus with the computation
of compensation.
FA-738-15-Group.doc
16. In Sarla Verma (supra) this Court held that the multiplier
to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the
table of the said judgment which starts with an operative
multiplier of 18. As the age of the deceased at the time of
the death was 26 years, the multiplier of 17 ought to have
been applied. The Tribunal taking into consideration the
age of the deceased rightly applied the multiplier of 17 but
the High Court committed a serious error by not giving the
benefit of multiplier of 17 and bringing it down to the
multiplier of 13."
47.
According to learned counsels for the appellants, in this judgment,
the above referred earlier decisions, including that of the decision of three-
Judge Bench in Trilok Chandra (supra) was not considered or discussed
while holding that the selection of multiplier is to be based on the age of
the deceased. Hence, this decision cannot have any binding force of law.
According to him, as the law laid down in the earlier three-Judges Bench
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Trilok Chandra (supra) was
ignored in this case by the two-Judges Bench, the legal position laid down
in Trilok Chandra (supra) that, the selection of multiplier is to be based
on the age of the parents, when deceased is a bachelor, will prevail.
48. Learned counsels for the appellants have then referred to another
landmark decision of the three-Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
FA-738-15-Group.doc
the case of Reshma Kumari and Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan and Anr. 15. In
this case, two specific questions were referred for decision as under :-
"1.1 Whether the multiplier specified in the Second
Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(for short "the 1988 Act) should be scrupulously
applied in all cases?
And
1.2 Whether for determination of the multiplicand, the 1988
Act provides for any criterion, particularly as regards
determination of future prospects?"
49. While deciding this Reference and after taking into consideration all
its earlier decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe,
in paragraph Nos.31, 32 and 33 of its judgment, as under:-
"31. Section 168 of the 1988 Act provides the guideline
that the amount of compensation shall be awarded by
the claims tribunal which appears to it to be just. The
expression, 'just' means that the amount so
determined is fair, reasonable and equitable by
accepted legal standards and not a forensic lottery.
Obviously 'just compensation' does not mean 'perfect'
or 'absolute' compensation. The just compensation
principle requires examination of the particular
situation obtaining uniquely in an individual case.
15 2013 STPL (Web) 262 SC
FA-738-15-Group.doc
32. Almost a century back in Taff Vale Railway Co. v.
Jenkins, the House of Lords laid down the test that
award of damages in fatal accident action is
compensation for the reasonable expectation of
pecuniary benefit by the deceased's family. The
purpose of award of compensation is to put the
Dependants of the deceased, who had been bread-
winner of the family, in the same position financially
as if he had lived his natural span of life; it is not
designed to put the claimants in a better financial
position in which they would otherwise have been if
the accident had not occurred. At the same time, the
determination of compensation is not an exact
science and the exercise involves an assessment
based on estimation and conjectures here and there
as many imponderable factors and unpredictable
contingencies have to be taken into consideration.
33. This Court in C.K. Subramania Iyer and Ors. v. T.
Kunhikuttan Nair and Ors. : 1970 (2) SCR 688,
reiterated the legal philosophy highlighted in Taff Vale
Railway for award of compensation in claim cases
and said that there is no exact uniform rule for
measuring the value of the human life and the
measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise
mathematical calculations. Obviously, award of
damages in each case would depend on the
particular facts and circumstances of the case but the
element of fairness in the amount of compensation so
determined is the ultimate guiding factor ."
FA-738-15-Group.doc
50. Then, relying on the decision in the case of Susamma Thomas
(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that,
"In our view the determination of compensation based on
multiplier method is the best available means and the
most satisfactory method and must be followed
invariably by the Tribunals and Courts. We are of the
opinion that the statement to that effect made in the case
of Susamma Thomas (supra) is equally applicable to
the fatal accident claims made under Section 166 of the
Act."
51. As to the selection of the multiplier, in paragraph No.36 of the
Judgment, after considering the 'Table' and the law laid down in Sarla
Verma's case (supra), which makes it necessary to consider the age of
the deceased, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe that,
"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". According to the
Hon'ble Supreme Court,
"If the multiplier as indicated in Column (4) of the table
read with paragraph 42 of the Report in Sarla Verma is
followed, the wide variations in the selection of multiplier
in the claims of compensation in fatal accident cases
can be avoided. A standard method for selection of
multiplier is surely better than a criss-cross of varying
methods. It is high time that we move to a standard
FA-738-15-Group.doc
method of selection of multiplier, income for future
prospects and deduction for personal and living
expenses. The courts in some of the overseas
jurisdictions have made this advance. It is for these
reasons, we think we must approve the table in Sarla
Verma for the selection of multiplier in claim
applications made under Section 166 in the cases of
death. We do accordingly. If for the selection of
multiplier, Column (4) of the table in Sarla Verma is
followed, there is no likelihood of the claimants who
have chosen to apply under Section 166 being awarded
lesser amount on proof of negligence on the part of the
driver of the motor vehicle than those who prefer to
apply under Section 163A. As regards the cases where
the age of the victim happens to be upto 15 years, we
are of the considered opinion that in such cases
irrespective of Section 163A or Section 166 under which
the claim for compensation has been made, multiplier of
15 and the assessment as indicated in the Second
Schedule subject to correction as pointed out in Column
(6) of the table in Sarla Verma should be followed. This
is to ensure that claimants in such cases are not
awarded lesser amount when the application is made
under Section 166 of the 1988 Act. In all other cases of
death where the application has been made under
Section 166, the multiplier as indicated in Column (4) of
the table in Sarla Verma should be followed".
52. In paragraph No.42, the Hon'ble Supreme Court then held that, "the
FA-738-15-Group.doc
standards fixed by this Court in Sarla Verma on the aspect of deduction
for personal living expenses must ordinarily followed unless a case for
departure is made out."
53. Ultimately, in paragraph No.43.4 the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid
down in categorical terms that, "the Claims Tribunal shall follow the steps
and guidelines stated in paragraph No.19 of Sarla Verma for
determination of compensation in cases of death."
54. According to learned counsels for the appellants, though in this
case Hon'ble Apex Court has directed to follow the law laid down in Sarla
Verma (supra), there is no discussion on the controversy as to in case of
death of a bachelor, where parents are the claimants, whether the choice
of multiplier should be based on the age of the deceased or the age of the
claimants. According to them, decision in this case also, therefore, does
not disturb the law laid down in Trilok Chandra's case (supra) that, the
age of the claimants, which is higher in such cases, is the determining
factor.
55. Learned counsels for the appellants have further referred to the
decision of Munna Lal Jain and Anr. Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and
FA-738-15-Group.doc
Ors16. This was a decision of three-Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court was constrained to observe that,
"There is never ending dispute on computation of
compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. In the
absence of any statutory and a straight jacket formula,
there are bound to be grey areas despite several
attempts made by this Court to lay down the guidelines.
Compensation would basically depend on the evidence
available in a case and the formulas shown by the courts
are only ig guidelines for the computation of the
compensation. That precisely is the reason, the courts
lodge a caveat stating "ordinarily", "normally",
"exceptional circumstances" etc. while suggesting the
formula".
56. In this case, the deceased was 30 years old bachelor and on his
accidental death, claim petition was filed by his parents. While relying
upon the decisions in case of Sarla Verma (supra) and Santosh Devi
Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. 17.,, in paragraph No.12, it was
observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:
" ... ... ... ... Whether the multiplier should depend on
the age 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
16 2015(STPL (Web) 421 SC
17 (2012) 6 SCC 421
FA-738-15-Group.doc
Reshma Kumari (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 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 age is to be taken."
[Emphasis Supplied]
57. In this Judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court then, in paragraph
No.13, quoted with approval paragraph No.19 of the judgment in Sarla
Varma (supra) as follows:-
"In Sarla Verma (supra), at paragraph 19, a two
Judge Bench dealt with this aspect in Step 2. To
quote:
19. xxx xxx xxx
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 would have lived or worked but
for the accident. Having regard to several
imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of
multipliers with reference to the age has been
identified by this Court. The multiplier should be
chosen from the said table with reference to the age
of the deceased."
FA-738-15-Group.doc
58. Accordingly, in this case, it was held that, the multiplier depending
on the age of the deceased, which was between 26 to 30 years, would be
'17'.
59. Learned counsels for the appellants have then also pointed out to
the decision of learned Single Judge of this Court (Coram: A.S. Oka, J.),
in the case of The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Umaji @
Umakant Irappa Ghodkumbe and Ors. in First Appeal No.828 of 2011
dated 8th July, 2011. In this case, the deceased was a bachelor of 25
years. The claimants were his parents, of the age of 40 and 45 years.
Hence, High Court considered their average age in between 40 to 45
years. The learned Single Judge then took note of the two conflicting
decisions; one in the case of Shakti Devi Vs. New India Insurance Co.
Ltd., JT 2010 (12) SC 106, holding that, "where the age of the claimant is
higher than the age of the deceased, the age of the claimant and not the
age of the deceased is to be taken into account for the capitalization of
the lost dependency. It is so because the choice of multiplier is
determined by the age of the deceased or that of the claimant, whichever
is higher."
60. Another decision taking conflicting view, as noted by the learned
FA-738-15-Group.doc
Single Judge, was in the case of P.S. Somanathan and Ors. Vs. District
Insurance Office, JT 2011 (2) SC 242, holding, in a similar situation, that,
"the multiplier will have to be determined on the basis of the age of the
deceased and not on the basis of the respective ages of the parents".
61. The learned Single Judge then, in paragraph No.8 of the Judgment,
held that, in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in
Kamleshwar Ishwardas Patel Vs. Union of India and Ors. 18, when
there are two conflicting views of the Co-ordinate Benches of the Hon'ble
Apex Court, it is not necessary to follow the later view. It was further held
that,
"The choice of multiplier has direct nexus with the
dependency. If the age of the deceased is 25 years and if
he is survived by widow, who is younger to him, then
there will be justification for applying full multiplier of 18. If
the deceased was unmarried and applicants are parents,
there is no logic in applying multiplier of 18. Hence, I am
inclined to follow the view in the case of Shakti Devi
(supra)". [Emphasis Supplied]
62. Thus, in this case, following the 'Table', given in the case of Sarla
Varma (supra), for the age group of 40 to 45 years, the multiplier of '14'
was selected by the learned Single Judge of this Court, taking the age of
18 (1995) (2) Bom C.R. 40,
FA-738-15-Group.doc
the parents-claimants as the base and not the age of the deceased, which
was 25 years.
63. According to learned counsel for the respondents-claimants, as this
decision is earlier to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases
of Reshma Kumari (supra) and Munna Lal (supra), which have given
quit as to the controversy relating to the selection of multiplier holding
that it is depending upon the age of the deceased, this decision of the
learned Single Judge of this Court can no more be called as laying
correct position of law.
64. Learned counsel Shri. Devendranath Joshi, appearing for the
appellant-New India Assurance Company in two other appeals, has relied
upon another decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bipin Mehta and Ors. in
First Appeal No.632 of 2015 dated 27.11.2015. In this decision, reliance
was placed on the decision of Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi Vs.
Ramkaran Ramchandra Sharma and Anr.19, wherein while dealing with
a similar situation, where the deceased was a bachelor of 19 years age
and the claimants were the parents, keeping in mind the age of the
parents, the multiplier of '13' was adopted.
19 (2015) 2 SCC 180
FA-738-15-Group.doc
65. Further reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shyam
Singh and Others20 and the decision of Ramesh Singh Vs. Satbir
Singh (supra), wherein it was held that, "after considering the age of the
parents of the deceased, appropriate multiplier would be determined
properly depending upon the age, whichever is higher". Accordingly, in this
case, as the age of the parents, at the time of accident, was 54 and 51
years; whereas the age of the deceased was 20 years, the Division Bench
of this Court applied the multiplier of '11', holding that the Tribunal has
erred in applying the multiplier of '17' by considering the age of the
deceased.
66. According to learned counsel for the respondents-claimants,
however, in this case, the later decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Reshma Kumari (supra) and Munna Lal, (supra) were not cited or
discussed. Even in the case of Ashwinbhai Modi (supra), on which
reliance was placed in this decision, the decisions in Reshma Kumari
(supra) and Munna Lal (supra) were not cited or considered.
67. Learned counsels for the appellants have then also referred to the
20 (2011) 7 SCC 65
FA-738-15-Group.doc
decision of the another learned Single Judge of this Court (Coram: K. U.
Chandiwal, J.) in the case of Reliance General Insurance Company
Ltd. Vs. Syeda Aleemunbee, w/o SD. Razaq, and Ors. 21, taking a
contrary view that, in case of death of a bachelor, the age of his parents
alone would not be a determining factor, but the age of the bachelor would
be relevant for multiplicand. In this decision, after referring to all the
above-said conflicting decisions on the point, it was held that :-
"27. Reading the later judgment of larger bench, emanating
from Reshma Kumari; Rajesh Rajbir Singh and Sufi
Devi, it cannot be said that larger bench was oblivious to
the judgment of Trilok Chandra equally by three Judges.
Again, it is difficult to conceive that Sarla Verma's case
does not refer to multiplier for death of a bachelor.
28. It is well settled, judicial process demands that a Judge
move within the framework of relevant legal rules and the
coveted modes of those for ascertaining them. The
judicial robe has its inbuilt discipline, which mandates, for
a High Court to adhere in tune with the precedent of
Supreme Court and in particular of the larger benches.
This is more so, if there are divergent views by Hon'ble
Judges of the Supreme Court, on identical issues."
68. In paragraph No.35 of its Judgment, learned Single Judge was
pleased to hold that,
21 [2015 (1)Mh. L. J.90
FA-738-15-Group.doc
"In Sarla Verma matter, though judgment is rendered by
Division bench, it has been consistently referred by
Hon'ble Supreme Court (by Bench of three Judges). In
none of later judgments there is a whisper or an iota of
dissidence to the view expressed in the matter of Sarla
Verma. One should not be oblivious in the matter of
Sarla Verma, multiplier was considered in the wake of
death and dependency. It naturally embrace in pitch a
case of death of a bachelor. There cannot be a
distinction and carving out case of a bachelor to a
married. However, in respect of personal expenses, the
principle would be certainly varying as, there are
minimum personal expenses to a bachelor than to a
married person. One has also to assess workability of
the precedent in particular facts of the case."
69. The learned counsels for the appellants has then pointed out
another decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court, (Coram:
Mridula Bhatkar, J.), in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Pranali Sandeep Madavi and Ors. in First Appeal No.1383 of 2013,
delivered on 21.11.2015, wherein after considering the decisions in
Susamma Thomas (supra) and Shanti Pathak (supra), the learned
Single Judge relied upon the authorities of Reshma Kumari (supra) and
Munna Lal Jain (supra) and held that, the multiplier is to be based on the
age of the deceased and where age of the deceased is between 26 to 30
years, then multiplier is '17'.
FA-738-15-Group.doc
70. Learned counsels for the appellants have then pointed out that the
judgment of Reshma Kumari (supra), on which reliance is placed, in all
these decisions for taking a view that the age of the deceased is relevant
for the choice of multiplier, is referred to the Larger Bench in the case of
National Insurance Company Vs. Pushpa and Ors. 22 Hence, the legal
position as such cannot be said to have crystallized or become final.
71. Thus, according to learned counsels for the appellants, in view of
these conflicting decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court, now
this Court has to resolve the issue. Learned counsel for the appellant
Shri. Ketan Joshi has then cited number of authorities, like, Kamalesh
Kumar Patel (supra), Jabalpur Bus Operators Vs. State of M.P. 23
Rattiram Vs. State of M.P.24 and Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd.
Vs. Hindustan Organic Chemical Ltd. Employees' Union 25 on the law
of precedent to decide, as to which decision, whether earlier or later,
should be followed whenever there are conflicting views of the Co-
ordinate Benches of the Apex Court. According to learned counsel for
appellant, as there are conflicting views of learned Single Judges of this
Court also on this issue, as referred above, this Court should set this
controversy at rest.
22 (2015) 9 SCC 166
23 2003 (4) MHPT 226
24 2012 (4) SCC 516
25 [2009 (3) (Mh. LJ 468]
FA-738-15-Group.doc
72. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that, as
the decision in the case of Reshma Kumari (supra) is now referred to a
Larger Bench by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court can take its own
decision as to which multiplier should be applied in these three appeals;
whether the age of the deceased or the age of the parents?
73. For the purpose of deciding this controversy, in my considered
opinion, this long line of aforesaid decisions make it clear that, in the case
of Susamma Thomas (supra), it has been clearly held that the choice of
multiplier is to be determined by the age of the deceased or that of the
claimants, whichever is higher. In the subsequent three-Judges Bench
decision in Trilok Chandra's case, this position has further been clarified
and in unequivocal terms, it is held that, selection of multiplier cannot, in
all the cases, be solely dependent on the age of the deceased. In case of
death of a bachelor, age of the parents is relevant factor for determining
the multiplier. In the case of Ramesh Singh (supra), a justification for
doing so was also laid down to the effect that, if a young man is killed in
the accident, leaving behind aged parents, who would not survive long
enough, to match with a high multiplier, provided by the 'Second
Schedule', then, the Court has to off-set such high multiplier and balance
the same with the short expectancy of the claimants.
FA-738-15-Group.doc
74. The decision in the case of Susamma Thomas (supra) that the
choice of multiplier is to be determined by the age of the deceased or that
of the claimants, whichever is higher, and the decision of three-Judges
Bench in the case of Trilok Chandra (supra) that selection of multiplier
cannot, in all the cases, be solely dependent on the age of the deceased
and in case of death of a bachelor, the age of the parents is relevant, is
consistently followed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in several other decisions,
like, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Charlie; New India Assurance
Co. Ltd. Vs. Shanti Pathak and further strengthen in Ramesh Singh Vs.
Satbir Singh; Shakti Devi Vs. New India Assurance Co.; National
Insurance Co. Vs. Shyam Singh; and Ashwinbhai Modi Vs.
Ramchandra Ramkaran Sharma (supra). This Court has also followed
the same view in the Division Bench decision, in the case of Bajaj
Alliance General Insurance Co. Vs. Bipin Mehta (supra) and by
learned Single Judge in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Umaji @
Umakant (supra).
75. Though the decisions in Munna Lal (supra) and Reshma Kumari
(supra), following the decision given in Sarla Verma (supra), held that,
along with other factors, the age of the deceased and his income is
relevant, neither the decision in Sarla Verma (supra), nor the decisions in
Reshma Kumari (supra) or Munna Lal (supra) deal with the actual
FA-738-15-Group.doc
controversy, 'as to what should be the multiplier in case of death of a
bachelor, when parents are the claimants?'. They deal with the selection
of multiplier in general cases, where the deceased is normally a married
person and the claimants are his/her spouse and children. It is pertinent to
note that, the 'Table' laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) does
not make any distinction between the death of a bachelor and the death of
a married person, as the said point was never raised for consideration in
those cases before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The reason may be because
in Susamma Thomas (supra), it was already laid down that, "selection of
multiplier would depend on the age of the deceased or the age of the
claimants, whichever is higher". Therefore, what should be the multiplier in
case of death of a bachelor was already set at rest in the decision of
Susamma Thomas (supra). As the age of the parents is always higher
than the age of the deceased, the age of the parents is relevant for choice
of multiplier. In the case of Susamma Thomas (supra), it was already
laid down that the age of the parents will be relevant for deciding multiplier
in case of death of a bachelor. This legal position is not expressly dealt
with in the decisions of Sarla Verma (supra), Munna Lal (supra),
Reshma Kumari or others.
76. As a matter of fact, the decision in Sarla Verma (supra), which is
followed in other decisions, mainly deal with the issue, 'as to whether
FA-738-15-Group.doc
'Second Schedule' given in the Act, which is meant for deciding claims
filed under Section 163-A of the Act, should be followed scrupulously?'
and 'whether there are any errors in the said 'Table'?' 'If so, how to assess
the just amount of compensation?; how much amount to be deducted
towards personal expenses of the deceased?; how to assess future
prospects of the income of the deceased?' No doubt, in that context, the
judgment of Sarla Verma (supra) also dealt with the selection of multiplier
and the Amendment introduced by the Amendment Act Act 54 of 1994,
inter alia, inserting Section 163-A containing a special provision as to
payment of compensation on structured formula basis, as indicated in the
'Second Schedule' to the Act. While dealing with these issues, it may be
true that, in paragraph No.19, while laying down three steps for
determining compensation in a uniform and consistent manner, the
Hon'ble Apex Court stated that, "having regard to the age of the deceased
and period of his active career the appropriate multiplier should be
selected and multiplier should be chosen from the Table provided in
'Second Schedule' with reference to the age of the deceased". However,
this observation is made in the context of lying down general principles or
guidelines for arriving at just amount of compensation and not in particular
reference of dealing with a situation where the deceased is a bachelor
and the claimants are the parents.
FA-738-15-Group.doc
77. It is significant to note that, though this Judgment in Sarla Verma
(supra), also refers to the decision in Trilok Chandra's judgment, it does
not expressly deal with the particular situation and the legal position laid
down in Trilok Chandra that, in case of death of a bachelor, the age of
claimants, and not the age of the deceased, is relevant. Thus, the
judgment in Sarla Verma (supra) is conspicuously silent as to the
eventuality, which is dealt with in the cases of Trilok Chandra, Charlie,
Shakti Devi, Ashwinbhai and several others referred above, where the
deceased is a bachelor and the parents are the claimants. It also does not
disturb, in any way, the legal position laid down in Susamma Thomas
(supra) that, "the selection of multiplier would depend on the age of the
deceased or the claimants, whichever is higher". The reason for the same
may be because in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where the deceased was a
married man, who has left behind his widow, three minor children, parents
and grand-father. Hence, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in this case, was not
dealing with the eventuality whether the deceased is a bachelor and
parents alone are the claimants. Hence, as the legal issue covered in
Trilok Chandra (supra) was not before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla
Verma (supra), there is no opinion as such expressed in this on the issue
of choice of multiplier when parents are alone the claimants. Even in the
FA-738-15-Group.doc
subsequent decisions, like, Reshma Kumari (supra) or Munna Lal
(supra) also, this issue was not raised for consideration, as the deceased
in those cases were married persons and claimants were the widow and
the children.
78. The learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of The New
India Assurance Company Vs. Pranali Sandeep Madvi (supra) has
followed the decision in Reshma Kumari and Munna Lal; whereas,
another learned Single Judge in the case of Reliance General Insurance
Co. Vs. Sayeeda followed the decision in Sarla Verma (supra). However,
once it is held that the Judgment in Sarla Verma does not expressly deal
with the eventuality dealt with by three-Judges Bench in Trilok Chandra
(supra), nor disturbs the legal position laid down in Susamma Thomas
(supra) that, the selection of multiplier would depend on the age of the
deceased or the claimants, whichever is higher, then, it follows that the
law laid down in these two authorities has to be followed while deciding
these three appeals, as, in all these three appeals, the parents alone are
the claimants.
79. Moreover, though in the case of P.S. Somnathan Vs. District
Insurance Officer (supra) and in the case of Amrit Bhanushali Vs.
FA-738-15-Group.doc
National Insurance Co. (supra), the two-Judges Bench of the Hon'ble
Apex Court was dealing with a situation wherein parents alone were the
claimants on account of death of unmarried son, in the later decision, the
cases of Susamma Thomas (supra) and Trilok Chandra (supra) were
neither referred, nor discussed and in the former decision, though these
cases were referred, there is no discussion as to why the view taken in
these two cases should be distinguished.
80.
In view of this legal situation, in my humble view, the law laid down
in the earliest decision of Susamma Thomas (supra), further clarified
and confirmed in the three-Judges Bench decision of Trilok Chandra
(supra) and Ramesh Singh (supra), and followed in subsequent
decisions while dealing with the similar situation, will prevail and hold the
ground that choice of multiplier would depend on the age of the deceased
or the age of claimants, whichever is higher. As in the case of death of a
bachelor, age of the claimants, who are his parents, is higher, choice of
multiplier would depend on their average age and not on the age of the
deceased.
81. Even otherwise, it also appears to be logical and rationale that in
case of death of a bachelor, it is not the age of the deceased, but the age
FA-738-15-Group.doc
of his parents, who are the claimants, should be relevant. After all, the
very concept of payment of compensation implies that the dependents are
paid damages to off-set the pecuniary loss likely to be suffered by them
due to untimely death of the deceased. The assessment of damages,
therefore, necessarily dependent on the question as to the life expectancy
of the dependents. The life expectancy of the deceased may be higher,
but if the life expectancy of dependents-claimants is not that much, which
is obvious in case where claimants are the parents, amount of
compensation cannot be assessed on the basis of life expectancy of the
deceased. Otherwise, as rightly submitted by learned counsels for the
appellants, the amount of compensation may become a bonanza or
source of profits. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, if the amount of
compensation has to be just and reasonable, it must match with the life
expectancy of claimants and as the life expectancy of claimants, when
alone parents are the claimants, is not as much as that of the deceased,
their age becomes relevant for deciding the appropriate multiplier. The
multiplier method necessarily represents the number of years' purchase
on which the loss of dependency is capitalized. If the parents, on account
of their age, are not likely to survive long, so as to be dependent on the
deceased till his own life-time, it necessarily follows that the age of the
parents has to be the relevant criteria, and not the age of the deceased,
FA-738-15-Group.doc
for deciding the multiplier. The reason and logic in that way cannot part
ways with the law. They are the very essence and the spirit of the law.
Rational view cannot be divorced or sacrificed on technicalities.
82. Hence, in my considered opinion, in these appeals before me also,
as the deceased were bachelors and the claimants are the parents and as
the age of the parents is higher than the age of the deceased, choice of
multiplier has to be made depending on the average age of the parents
and not the age of the deceased.
83. Accordingly, in Appeal No.738 of 2015, though the age of the
deceased at the time of the accident was 32 years, as the age of the
parents, who are the only claimants, is stated to be 50 years, their age
being higher than the deceased, depending on their age, the appropriate
multiplier would be '10'.
84. In Appeal No. 750 of 2016, though the age of deceased Avani at the
time of accident was 22 years, as age of her parents, who are the only
claimants, was 57 and 48 years, taking their average age as 52 years,
appropriate multiplier would be '11'.
FA-738-15-Group.doc
85. In Appeal No.756 of 2016, though the age of deceased Kartik at the
time of accident was between 21 to 25 years, as the age of his parents,
who are the only claimants, was 55 and 53, taking their average age as
52 years, the appropriate multiplier would be '11'.
Addition of Income towards Future Prospects
86. Now coming to the aspect of addition of income towards future
prospects, the Tribunal has, relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex
Court, has added 50% income of actual income for calculation of the
multiplicand in all the three claim petitions.
87. As to the law relating to additional income towards future prospects,
as pointed out by learned counsels for the appellants, there are two again
conflicting views of the Co-ordinate Benches of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the cases of Reshma Kumari (supra) and Ramesh Singh Vs. Satbir
Singh (supra).
88. In the case of Reshma Kumari (supra), after relying upon the
decision in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), it was held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court as follows :
FA-738-15-Group.doc
"With regard to the addition to income for future
prospects, in Sarla Verma , this Court has noted earlier
decisions in Susamma Thomas, Sarla Dixit, 1996 (3)
SCC 179 and Abati Bezbaruah : 2003 (3) SCC 148 and
in paragraph 24 of the Judgment held as under:
"24..............In view of the imponderables and
uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a
rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary
to the actual salary income of the deceased
towards future prospects, where the deceased
had a permanent job and was below 40 years.
(Where the annual income is in the taxable
range, the words "actual salary" should be read
as "actual salary less tax"). The addition should
be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40
to 50 years. There should be no addition, where
the age of the deceased is more than 50 years.
Though the evidence may indicate a different
percentage of increase, it is necessary to
standardise the addition to avoid different
yardsticks being applied or different methods of
calculation being adopted. Where the deceased
was self-employed or was on a fixed salary
(without provision for annual increments, etc.),
the courts will usually take only the actual
income at the time of death. A departure
therefrom should be made only in rare and
exceptional cases involving special
circumstances". [Emphasis Supplied]
FA-738-15-Group.doc
89. Whereas, in the decision of Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance
Company Limited and Ors.26, while dealing with the issue of addition of
additional income for the future prospects to a case where the deceased
was neither a Government servant nor was a permanent employee, the
Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to hold as under :
"14. We find it extremely difficult to fathom any rationale for the
observation made in para 24 of the judgment in Sarla
Verma case that where the deceased was self-employed
or was on a fixed salary without provision for annual
increment, etc., the courts will usually take only the actual
income at the time of death and a departure from this rule
should be made only in rare and exceptional cases
involving special circumstances. In our view, it will be naive
to say that the wages or total emoluments/income of a
person who is self-employed or who is employed on a fixed
salary without provision for annual increment, etc., would
remain the same throughout his life.
15. The rise in the cost of living affects everyone across the
board. It does not make any distinction between rich and
poor. As a matter of fact, the effect of rise in prices which
directly impacts the cost of living is minimal on the rich and
maximum on those who are self-employed or who get fixed
income/emoluments. They are the worst affected people.
Therefore, they put in extra efforts to generate additional
income necessary for sustaining their families.
26 (2012) 6 SCC 421
FA-738-15-Group.doc
16. The salaries of those employed under the Central and
State Governments and their agencies/instrumentalities
have been revised from time to time to provide a cushion
against the rising prices and provisions have been made
for providing security to the families of the deceased
employees. The salaries of those employed in private
sectors have also increased manifold. Till about two
decades ago, nobody could have imagined that salary of
Class IV employee of the Government would be in five
figures and total emoluments of those in higher echelons of
service will cross the figure of rupees one lakh.
17. Although the wages/income of those employed in
unorganised sectors has not registered a corresponding
increase and has not kept pace with the increase in the
salaries of the government employees and those employed
in private sectors, but it cannot be denied that there has
been incremental enhancement in the income of those who
are self-employed and even those engaged on daily basis,
monthly basis or even seasonal basis. We can take judicial
notice of the fact that with a view to meet the challenges
posed by high cost of living, the persons falling in the latter
category periodically increase the cost of their labour. In
this context, it may be useful to give an example of a tailor
who earns his livelihood by stitching clothes. If the cost of
living increases and the prices of essentials go up, it is but
natural for him to increase the cost of his labour. So will be
the cases of ordinary skilled and unskilled labour, like,
barber, blacksmith, cobbler, mason, etc.
FA-738-15-Group.doc
18. Therefore, we do not think that while making the
observations in the last three lines of para 24 of Sarla
Verma judgment, the Court had intended to lay down an
absolute rule that there will be no addition in the income of
a person who is self-employed or who is paid fixed wages.
Rather, it would be reasonable to say that a person who is
self-employed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get
30% increase in his total income over a period of time and
if he/she becomes the victim of an accident then the same
formula deserves to be applied for calculating the amount
of compensation." [Emphasis Supplied]
90. As against it, in the case of Rajesh Vs. Rajbir Singh27, a three-
Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered the judgment on
12.04.2013 opining thus :
"8. Since, the Court in Santosh Devi's case actually
intended to follow the principle in the case of salaried
persons as laid down in Sarla Verma's case and to
make it applicable also to the self-employed and
persons on fixed wages, it is clarified that the increase
in the case of those groups is not 30% always; it will
also have a reference to the age. In other words, in the
case of self-employed or persons with fixed wages, in
case, the deceased victim was below 40 years, there
must be an addition of 50% to the actual income of the
deceased while computing future prospects. Needless
to say that the actual income should be income after
27 (2013) 9 SCC 54
FA-738-15-Group.doc
paying the tax, if any. Addition should be 30% in case
the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years.
9. In Sarla Verma's case, it has been stated that in the
case of those above 50 years, there shall be no
addition. Having regard to the fact that in the case of
those self-employed or on fixed wages, where there is
normally no age of superannuation, we are of the view
that it will only be just and equitable to provide an
addition of 15% in the case where the victim is between
the age group of 50 to 60 years so as to make the
compensation just, equitable, fair and reasonable.
There shall normally be no addition thereafter."
91. In the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pushpa
(supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has, therefore, in view of these divergent
opinions, thought it fit to refer the matter to the Larger Bench, so as to
have an authoritative pronouncement as regards the manner of addition of
income for future prospects. As a result, this issue is now pending before
the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
92. According to learned counsels for the appellants, as in none of
these three appeals the deceased were on permanent employment or
Government job with regular annual increase in their salary, the addition of
50% additional income towards future prospects, as made by the Tribunal,
FA-738-15-Group.doc
is totally unwarranted and needs to be set aside or modified. Whereas,
according to learned counsel for the respondents-claimants, having
regard to the young age of the deceased Avani and Kartik and the fact
that Avani was studying C.A. and Kartik was earning Rs.12,500/- towards
Performance Bonus, the Tribunal has rightly awarded additional income of
50% towards their future prospects. In respect of deceased Vijaysingh, it
is submitted that, as he was in permanent job as 'H.R. Executive' in
Zensor Technologies Ltd., Tribunal has not committed any error in
awarding 50% additional income towards his future prospects also.
93. In my considered opinion, for the purpose of deciding these three
appeals, it is not necessary to enter into this controversy, having regard to
the fact that in this case neither the deceased Avani nor deceased Kartik
or deceased Vijaysingh were, at the time of accident, self-employed
persons, but were proved to be in service. Deceased Avani was proved to
be working with M/s. N.G. Thakkar & Co., doing article-ship. It may be true
that she was in third year of C.A., but, at the same time, she was getting
salary of Rs.7,000/- per month towards her job with M/s. N.G. Thakkar &
Co. The relevant documentary evidence, like, her Salary Certificate
(Exhibit-38) and Bank Statement (Exhibit-40), are also produced and
proved on record by examining concerned officer from M/s. N.G. Thakkar
FA-738-15-Group.doc
& Co., Mr. Natvar Thakkar. His evidence also goes to show that deceased
Avani was honest, hard-worker and she was having better prospect of
completing her C.A. and thereby earning handsome income. This Court
can also take judicial notice of the income normally drawn or earned by a
Chartered Accountant.
94. In the case of Sanjay Verma Vs. Haryana Roadways 28, relied
upon by learned counsel for the respondents-claimants, while deciding the
claim of the injured, who had suffered 100% disablement, the three-
Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court, relying upon the decision in the
case of Santosh Devi and Shakti Devi Vs. New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. (supra), held that, as injured was 25 years of age, a self-employed
person and having steady income, as per Income Tax Return, addition of
50% of the income, which he was earning, at the time of accident, was
justified towards future prospects.
95. Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants has also relied upon
the decision of two-Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
V. Mekala Vs. M. Malathi and Another 29, wherein claimant was a brilliant
student of 16 years age, holding first rank in School, who had suffered
28 2014 ACJ 692
29 (2014) 11 SCC 178
FA-738-15-Group.doc
70% permanent disability in motor accident. Considering that she was a
brilliant student, having good career prospects, her notional monthly
income fixed by the High Court as Rs.6,000/- was considered too meager
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it was enhanced to Rs.10,000/- per
month as just and reasonable under the head of 'loss of income'. Then
considering her loss of future prospects, 50% additional income was
added under this head.
96.
Therefore, in my considered opinion, in the instant case also, if one
has regard to the bright future of a young budding talented girl, studying in
third year of Chartered Accountant course, like, deceased Avani, her
present income @ Rs.7,000/- per month, being on lower side, it cannot be
said that the Tribunal has committed any error in computing additional
income of 50% towards her future prospects. As a matter of fact, this
Court is of the opinion that, if her future prospect of income as 'C.A.' is
considered, the compensation amount of Rs.11,08,000/-, as awarded by
the Tribunal, is not, in any way, excessive for the appellant-Insurance
Company to have any grievance. In reality, having regard to her future
prospects as a professional, like, Chartered Accountant, the amount of
compensation, as awarded by the Tribunal, needs to be maintained,
though, in her case, this Court has reduced the multiplier from '18' to '11'.
FA-738-15-Group.doc
97. Similarly, in respect of First Appeal No.756 of 2016, the
documentary evidence proves on record that deceased Kartik was a
Commerce Graduate and has completed Diploma Course in N.S.C. and
B.S.C. He was working with M/s. Truestone Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd
Company. He was also engaged in share market and drawing income of
Rs.25,000/-per month. All the necessary and relevant documentary
evidence was produced on record to that effect in the form of his Salary
Slip along with Bank Statement (Exhibit-40). The Manager from M/s.
Truestone Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd., Shri. Rajan J. Sonawane, was
also examined to prove these documents. He has deposed that, out of
Rs.25,000/- per month, Rs.12,500/- was paid as Salary, whereas,
Rs.12,500/- was paid towards Performance Bonus. The Tribunal has
taken his monthly income from salary only as Rs.12,500/- and considering
his future prospects, added 50% of the same towards future prospects;
and, after deducting 50% towards his personal expenses, arrived at the
multiplicand of Rs.1,12,500/-. In this case, however, in my opinion, this
Court has to take into account the fact that in addition to salary, deceased
Kartik was also earning Performance Bonus of Rs.12,500/- per month,
which income, Tribunal has not at all considered. Needless to state, that if
at the young age of 23 years, he was earning Rs.12,500/- per month
FA-738-15-Group.doc
towards Performance Bonus, in addition to his salary, his future prospects
of earning enhanced income were bright.
98. In this view of the matter, even in his case also, the addition of 50%
made by the Tribunal towards his future prospects can in no way be called
as excessive, leaving aside the legal issue as to whether 50% additional
income to be added or not to the actual income in case of a person, who
is not in a Government employment. Hence, no interference is warranted
so far as multiplicand of Rs.1,12,500/-, which is arrived at by the Tribunal
in his case. However, as the multiplier is now reduced from '18' to '11', the
financial loss will also be reduced to Rs.12,37,500/-. In that amount,
Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.20,000/- towards loss to
estate, as awarded by the Tribunal, will have to be added. Thus, total
compensation amount will be Rs.12,82,500/-. Merely because his parents
are having one more son, who is in service, is not sufficient to deny them
just and reasonable compensation, which they were entitled on account of
the untimely death of the deceased. It cannot be accepted that their
dependency on the deceased was reduced as they have one another son.
99. In First Appeal No.738 of 2015, again deceased is of the age of 32
years and in the permanent employment as 'H.R. Executive' in M/s.
FA-738-15-Group.doc
Zensar Technologies Ltd., getting salary of Rs.40,000/- per month. By
adding 50% towards his future prospects, the Tribunal has deducted 50%
towards his personal expenses; accordingly, calculated amount of
compensation. Having regard to his future bright prospects, considering
that, at the age of 32 years itself, he was an 'H.R. Executive' in a
Company like Zensar Technologies and drawing salary of Rs.40,000/- per
month, the multiplicand of Rs.3,13,728/- arrived at by the Tribunal being
just and reasonable, no interference is warranted therein. However, in his
case, as the multiplier is reduced from '16' to '10', the just and reasonable
amount of compensation would come to Rs.31,37,280/- + Rs.25,000/-
towards funeral expenses and Rs.25,000/- towards loss of estate; totally,
Rs.31,87,280/-. Thus, in this appeal, the compensation amount is reduced
from Rs.50,60,000/- to Rs.31,87,280/-.
100. As a result, First Appeal No.750 of 2016 stands dismissed.
101. First Appeal No.756 of 2016 is allowed partly. The impugned
Award, as passed by the Tribunal, is modified to Rs.12,82,500/-, instead
of Rs.20,70,000/-. The rest of the Award regarding apportionment, interest
and costs, is not disturbed.
FA-738-15-Group.doc
102. First Appeal No.738 of 2015 is allowed partly. The impugned Award,
as passed by the Tribunal, is modified to Rs.31,87,280/-, instead of
Rs.50,60,000/-. The rest of the Award regarding apportionment, interest
and costs, is not disturbed.
103. After paying the amount to the respondents-claimants as per the
modified Awards, the Tribunal to return the excess amount deposited with
it, to the appellant-Insurance Company, with proportionate interest
thereon.
104. In view of disposal of these appeals, Civil Applications therein do
not survive and the same are, accordingly, disposed of.
[DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.]
FA-738-15-Group.doc
