Sube Singh Vs. Shyam Singh (Dead) - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1192856
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided OnFeb-09-2018
Case Number26152 / 2015
JudgeHON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR, HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
AppellantSube Singh
RespondentShyam Singh (Dead)
Advocates:Kailash Chand
Excerpt:
1    reportable            in the supreme court of india civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal no.7176 of 2015 sube singh and anr.                          versus ….   appellants shyam singh (dead) and ors. ….respondents j u d g m e n t a.m. khanwilkar, j.1. the   sole   question   to   be   answered   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?.  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 1 2015 (2) scc 180 2 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   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 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 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 3 was only 23 years of age on the date of accident. to buttress this submission, reliance is 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.  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 jayantilal   modi  (supra),   held   that   multiplier   14   will   be applicable in the present case, keeping in mind the age of the 2 2009 (6) scc 121 3 2015 (6) scc 347 4 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 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 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   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 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   deceased.   (b)   income   of   the deceased; and (c) the number of dependents. to   arrive   at   the   loss   of   dependency,   the 5   consider     must tribunal (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 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.” in   sarla   verma   (supra),   at   paragraph­19   a   two­ 12. judge bench dealt with this aspect in step 2. to quote:“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 would   have   lived   or   worked   out   for   the accident 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 deceased.”   having   regard   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  18.  4 air 2017 sc 5157 6 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   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 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 with no order as to costs.    .………………………….cji.         (dipak misra) …………………………..….j.       (a.m. khanwilkar) …………………………..….j.(dr. d.y. chandrachud)                    new delhi; february 09, 2018.
Judgment:

1    REPORTABLE            IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.7176 OF 2015 Sube Singh and Anr.                          Versus ….   Appellants Shyam Singh (Dead) and Ors. ….Respondents J U D G M E N T A.M. Khanwilkar, J.

1. The   sole   question   to   be   answered   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?.  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 1 2015 (2) SCC 180 2 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   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 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 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 3 was only 23 years of age on the date of accident. To buttress this submission, reliance is 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.  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 Jayantilal   Modi  (supra),   held   that   multiplier   14   will   be applicable in the present case, keeping in mind the age of the 2 2009 (6) SCC 121 3 2015 (6) SCC 347 4 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 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 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   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 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   deceased.   (b)   income   of   the deceased; and (c) the number of dependents. To   arrive   at   the   loss   of   dependency,   the 5   consider     must Tribunal (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 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.”

In   Sarla   Verma   (supra),   at   paragraph­19   a   two­ 12. Judge Bench dealt with this aspect in Step 2. To quote:

“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 would   have   lived   or   worked   out   for   the accident 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 deceased.”

  having   regard   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  18.  4 AIR 2017 SC 5157 6 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   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 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 with no order as to costs.    .………………………….CJI.         (Dipak Misra) …………………………..….J.

       (A.M. Khanwilkar) …………………………..….J.

(Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud)                    New Delhi; February 09, 2018.