REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  4921 OF 2011 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 21418 of 2010]

National Insurance Co. Ltd.                                    …. Appellant

Versus

Shyam Singh and Ors.                                      …. Respondents

                                        JUDGMENT

Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated  

15.03.2010 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at  

Jabalpur in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4867 of 2009, whereby  

the High Court had partially allowed the appeal filed by the  

Respondent  No.  3  and  4  herein,  against  the  award  dated

28.08.2009 passed by the Second Additional Motor Accident  

Claims Tribunal, Satna, Madhya Pradesh and enhanced the  

compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that Respondent No. 3 and 4  

are  parents  of  one  Yogendra  Kumar  Pathak,  who  was  19  

years  of  age  and  on  01.11.2007  while  on  his  way  to  his  

village Kor Gaon, he alongwith his sister were travelling in  

jeep  No.  MP 19-A  930.  The  said  jeep  wasbeing  driven by  

Respondent  No.  1  and  met  with  an  accident  near  Dhal  

Factory General Road due to rash and negligent driving by  

the Respondent No. 1which resulted in his death on the spot.  

FIR was lodged at Police Station, Civil Lines, Satna against  

the driver under Sections 229 and 304-A of the Indian Penal  

Code.  His  dead  body  was  taken  to  his  village  from  the  

hospital  on  payment  of  Rs.  800/-  and   amount  of  Rs.  

25000/- was spent on cremation.

4.  It was stated in the claim petition that before his death, the  

deceased was a young man of robust health and was working  

as  mechanical  fitter  in  Priya  Engineering  Prism  Cement  

Factory on the salary of Rs. 4500/- per month and in total  

2

was getting Rs. 6000/- a month inclusive of salary and over  

time allowance and was supporting his parents financially.  

After his death, Respondents No. 3 and 4 have been rendered  

without any financial support and have been deprived of the  

association  and  pleasure  of  having  a  family  and  grand  

children in future.  

5. The M.A.C.T., Satna, came to a finding that the deceased was  

earning Rs. 3000/- per month and deducted 50 % therefrom  

towards  personal  expenses,  as  he  was  a  bachelor.  

Considering the  age  of  the  parents  which was 56 and 55  

years,  applied  the  Multiplier  of  9,  and  awarded  a  total  

compensation of Rs. 1,72,000/- (Rs. 1,62,000/- towards the  

loss  of  dependency  +  Rs.  10,000/-  towards  conventional  

heads) along with 6 % interest per annum from the date of  

claim petition. Being aggrieved, the Respondent No. 3 and 4  

preferred miscellaneous appeal No. 4867 of 2009 before the  

High  Court  for  enhancement  of  amount  of  compensation  

stating that the income of the deceased was Rs. 4500/- and  

not  Rs.  3000/-  as  determined  by  the  Tribunal,  and  a  

multiplier of 16 instead of 9 was supposed to be applied. The  

3

High Court relying on the judgment of this Court in the case  

of Sarla  Verma  (Smt.)  and  Others  v.  Delhi  Transport  

Corporation and Another (2009) 6 SCC 121, enhanced the  

multiplier  to 18 instead of  9 and granted expenses to the  

tune of Rs. 15000/- under conventional heads. Accordingly,  

the High Court enhanced the amount of compensation from  

Rs. 1,72,000/- to Rs. 3,39,000/-

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted  

that the High Court had failed to correctly apply the ratio  

laid in the case of Sarla Verma case (supra.). It was further  

contended that this Court has repeatedly held that in case  

where an unmarried young man dies, the average age of the  

parents will be taken for determining the multiplier and not  

the age of the deceased. In the aforesaid case, it has been  

clearly  stated  that  for  the  age  group  of  56-60  years  the  

multiplier should be 8, as has been correctly applied by the  

Tribunal by taking the average age of the Respondents 3 and  

4 who are 55 and 56 years of age. It was further submitted  

that assuming, though not admitting, even if the age of the  

deceased is to be considered for determining the multiplier,  

4

the  correct  multiplier  should  have  been 16 instead of  18,  

which is applicable to the age group between 15 to 20 years.  

7. On the other  hand,  the learned counsel  appearing for  the  

Respondents No. 3 and 4 supported the impugned judgment  

and submitted that the High Court correctly enhanced the  

multiplier keeping in view the age of the deceased which was  

19 years.   

8. The  assessment  of  damages  and  compensation  takes  into  

account a number of imponderables. This has been held by  

this court in the case of  General Manager, Kerala State  

Road  Transport  Corporation,  Trivandrum  v.  Mrs.  

Susamma Thomas and Ors. (AIR 1994 SC 1631) as: -

“The assessment of damages to compensate the  dependents  is  beset  with  difficulties  because  from  the  nature  of  things,  it  has  to  take  into   account  many  imponderables,  e.g.  the  life  expectancy of the deceased and the dependents,   the  amount  that  the  deceased  would  have  earned  during  the  remainder  of  his  life,  the   amount  that  he  would  have  contributed  to  the   dependents during that period, the chances that   the  deceased  may  not  have  lived  or  the  dependents  may  not  live  up  to  the  estimated   remaining  period  of  their  life  expectancy,  the  

5

chances that the deceased might have got better   employment  or  income  or  might  have  lost  his  employment or income together etc.”    

9. This Court in the case of  Vijay Shankar Shinde and Ors.  

v. State of Maharashtra (2008) 2 SCC 670, after referring  

to the earlier judgments of this Court, in detail, dealt with  

the law with regard to determination of the multiplier in a  

similar situation as in the present case. The said findings of  

this Court are as under:     

“6. We have given anxious consideration to these  contentions and are of the opinion that the same  are  devoid  of  any  merits.  Considering  the  law  laid  down  in  New India  Assurance  Co.  Ltd.  v.   Charlie AIR  2005  SC 2157,  it  is  clear  that  the  choice of multiplier is determined by the age of   the deceased or claimants  whichever is higher.  Admittedly, the age of the father was 55 years.   The question of  mother's  age never cropped up  because that was not the contention raised even  before the  Trial  Court  or  before us.  Taking  the   age  to  be  55  years,  in  our  opinion,  the  courts   below  have  not  committed  any  illegality  in  applying the multiplier of 8 since the father was   running 56th year of his life.  

7.  The  learned  Counsel  relying  on  the  2nd  Schedule of the Act contended that the deceased  being about 16 or 17 years of age, a multiplier of   16  or  17  should  have  been  granted.  It  is  undoubtedly true that Section  163A was brought  on  the  Statute  book  to  shorten  the  period  of   litigation. The burden to prove the negligence or  

6

10. In our view, the dictum laid down in Vijay Shankar Shinde  

(supra)  is  applicable  to  the  present  case  on  all  fours.  

Accordingly, we hold that the Tribunal had rightfully applied  

the multiplier of 8 by taking the average of the parents of the  

deceased who were 55 and 56 years.  

11. Thus, the present appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent  

and the award passed by the Tribunal is restored. No costs.

                         ............................................J                                                      [ Dr. Mukundakam Sharma ]

  ............................................J                                [ Anil R. Dave ]

New Delhi, July 4, 2011.

8