NON­REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  6291 OF 2019

(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 34239 of 2015)

Joginder Singh & Anr. …Appellants

versus

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company      …Respondents

J U D G M E N T

INDU MALHOTRA, J.

Leave granted.

1. The present Civil Appeal has been filed to challenge the final

Judgment and Order dated 22.05.2015 passed by the High

Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in FAO (MVA) No. 386

of 2014.

  The Appellants herein have filed the present Civil Appeal

for enhancement of the compensation granted by the Motor

1

Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla (“MACT”) and the  High

Court.

2. The factual matrix in which the present Civil Appeal arises is

briefly stated as under :–

2.1. The  daughter of the  Appellants  viz.  Ambika  Thakur

was a student  who was undertaking an Air  Hostess

Training Program at the Frankfinn Institute,

Chandigarh.

2.2. On 10.9.2009, Ambika Thakur was travelling in a

Verna car bearing Registration No. CH­04­H­0297 from

Chandigarh to Bhatinda.

  The car met with an accident with a Tata Ace vehicle

bearing Registration No. PB­03T­4804 which was being

driven in a rash and negligent manner. The offending

vehicle suddenly stopped in front of the  Verna car,

which led to head long collision between the two

vehicles, and resulted in the death of Ambika Thakur

on the spot. Ambika Thakur was 20 years old at the

time of her death.

2

   The offending vehicle was insured with the

Respondent – Insurance Company.  

2.3. The Appellants herein being the parents of the

deceased, filed a Claim Petition before the MACT,

Shimla claiming compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/­ on

the death of their daughter.

2.4. The MACT  vide  Award dated 15.07.2014 granted

compensation  of  Rs.  10,40,000/­ to the  Appellant –

Claimants along with interest @7.5% p.a.

   The compensation was awarded under the following

heads :–

(i) The notional income of the deceased was taken as

Rs. 15,000/­ p.m.;

(ii) A deduction of 50% was made from the notional

income of the deceased, since she was unmarried;

(iii) The  MACT  applied the  Multiplier of 11 on the

basis of the age of the mother of the deceased;

(iv) An amount of Rs. 25,000/­ was awarded towards

loss of love and affection;

3

(v) An amount of Rs. 25,000/­ was awarded towards

funeral expenses.

2.5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Award, the Appellants filed

FAO (MVA) No. 386 of 2014 before the High Court of

Himachal Pradesh at Shimla for enhancement of

compensation.

   The  High  Court  vide  impugned  Judgment dated

22.05.2015 dismissed the Appeal, and upheld the

amount of compensation awarded by the MACT.

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment, the Appellant –

Claimants have filed the present Civil Appeal.

  We have heard the learned Counsel for the Appellants and

the Respondent – Insurance Company.

3.1. The Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the

MACT and the High Court applied the wrong Multiplier

of 11 by erroneously taking into consideration the age

of the mother of the deceased, instead of the age of the

deceased.

4

  It was submitted that as per the decision in  Sarla

Verma & Ors.  v.  Delhi  Transport  Corporation & Anr.,1

the Multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied for the

deceased  who  was  20 years old at the time of the

accident.

3.2. It was further submitted that the Courts below failed to

award compensation towards Future Prospects and

loss of estate.

3.3. The  Counsel for the Insurance  Company submitted

that the  Courts  below were justified in  applying the

Multiplier of 11 which should be as per the age of the

mother of the deceased, and not the age of the

deceased. Reliance was placed on this Court’s decision

in  New India Assurance Co.  Ltd.  v.  Shanti  Pathak &

Ors.2

4. We have perused the  judgments of the  Courts  below,  and

find that the wrong Multiplier has been applied to the facts of

the present case.

1 (2009) 6 SCC 121. 2 (2007) 10 SCC 1.

5

  The  issue with respect to  whether the  Multiplier to  be

applied in the case of a bachelor, should be computed on the

basis of the age of the deceased, or the age of the parents, is

no longer res integra. This issue has been recently settled by

a three Judge bench of this Court in  Royal Sundaram

Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.  v.  Mandala Yadagari Goud  &

Ors.,3 wherein it has been held that the Multiplier has to be

applied on the basis on the age of the deceased. The Court

held that :

“10.  A reading of the  judgment  in Sube Singh (supra) shows that where a three Judge Bench has categorically taken  the  view  that it is the age of the deceased and not the age of the parents that would be the factor for the purposes of taking the multiplier to be applied.  This judgment  undoubtedly relied  upon  the  case  of Munna Lal  Jain (supra)  which is  also  a three Judge Bench judgment in this behalf. The relevant portion of the judgment has also been extracted.  Once  again the  extracted  portion in turn refers to the judgment of a three Judge Bench in  Reshma Kumari and  Ors. v.  Madan Mohan and Anr. (2013) 9 SCC 65. The relevant portion of Reshma Kumari in turn has referred to Sarla Verma (supra) case and given its imprimatur to the same. The loss of dependency is thus stated to be based on: (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. It is the third aspect  which is of significance and

3 (2019) 5 SCC 554.

6

Reshma Kumari categorically states that it does not want to revisit the law settled in Sarla Verma case in this behalf.

11. Not only this, the subsequent judgment of the Constitution bench in Pranay Sethi (supra)  has  also  been referred to in  Sube Singh for the purpose of calculation of the multiplier.

12.  We are convinced that there is no need to once again take up this issue settled by the aforesaid judgments of three Judge Bench and also relying upon the Constitution Bench that it is the age of the deceased which has to be taken into account and not the age of the dependents.”

(emphasis supplied)

  In the present case, since the deceased was 20 years old, a

Multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied as per the

decision of this Court in Sarla Verma (supra).

4.1. We further find that the Courts below have failed to

award  Future  Prospects  @40% of the income  of the

deceased, as mandated by the judgment of the

Constitution Bench  in National  Insurance Co.  Ltd.  v.

Pranay Sethi & Ors.4

  We direct that the compensation be re­worked after

awarding 40% towards Future Prospects.

4 (2017) 16 SCC 680.

7

4.2. Furthermore, the  Courts  below have failed to  award

loss  of estate  @Rs.15,000/­  as  per the judgment in

Pranay Sethi (supra).

4.3. The Courts below have awarded a lump sum amount of

Rs. 25,000/­ towards loss of love and affection.

  This Court in  Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd.  v.

Nanu Ram & Ors.5 has held that a sum of Rs. 40,000/­

is to be paid  to each of the parents  towards  loss of

consortium on the death of a child. Therefore, the

Appellants are entitled to be awarded  Rs. 40,000/­

each towards loss of consortium.

4.4. The funeral expenses and interest awarded by the

MACT are maintained.

5. In light of the aforesaid discussion, the compensation

awarded to the Appellants is being enhanced as follows :

i) Income : Rs. 15,000/­ ii) Future Prospects : Rs. 6,000/­ (i.e. 40% of

the income) iii) Deduction towards  

personal expenses : 50%

iv) Total income : Rs. 10,500/­ (i.e. 50% of 15,000 + 6,000)

v) Multiplier : 18 vi) Loss of future income : Rs. 22,68,000/­ (i.e.

5 (2018) 18 SCC 130.

8

10,500 x 12 x 18) vii) Enhanced amount : Rs. 12,78,000/­ (i.e.

22,68,000 – 9,90,000) viii) Loss of Consortium to

each of the Appellants : Rs. 55,000/­  

(i.e. after deducting 25,000 awarded by the

MACT from 40,000 each = 80,000)

ix) Loss of Estate : Rs. 15,000/­

   Total enhancement : Rs. 13,48,000/­

6. The Respondent – Insurance Company is directed to pay the

enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 13,48,000/­ to the

Appellants within 1 month from the date of this judgment.

  The enhanced amount shall carry Simple Interest @7.5%

p.a. from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till the date of

realization.

The Civil Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. All

pending Applications, if any, are accordingly disposed of.

Ordered accordingly.

.......................................J. (INDU MALHOTRA)

...…...............………………J. (SANJIV KHANNA)

New Delhi; August 14, 2019.

9