REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.    9312   OF 2019 @SLP(C)29193/2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Diary No.   29727 of 2018)

          KUNJAN SADANA & ANR.                        … APPELLANTS

VERSUS

           MAHESH KUMAR & ORS                        … RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

S.ABDUL NAZEER, J.

1. Delay condoned. 2.  Leave granted. 3. The instant appeal has been filed by the claimants challenging the judgment

and order dated 08.08.2017 of the High Court of Delhi, in MAC Appeal No.479

of 2009 wherein the High Court has partly allowed the appeal and consequently

enhanced the amount of compensation from Rs 3,72,620/- to Rs 5,02,620/-. The

appellants  have  filed  this  appeal,  seeking  further  enhancement  of  the

compensation.   4. The appellants are the widowed mother and the younger brother (a minor) of

the deceased. The deceased namely, Shri Yitesh Sadana alias Prince, a bachelor,

aged  19  years,  succumbed  to  injuries  that  he  sustained  in  a  motor  vehicle

accident that occurred on 18.04.2007, which was caused due to the negligence

of the driver of a bus, bearing registration No DL-1PA-4403. It is admitted that

1

the offending vehicle was insured with New India Assurance Co Ltd, the third

respondent herein, for third party risk. As mentioned above, the claim petition

was allowed in part, by the Tribunal by Award dated 06.06.2009. Thereafter, the

appeal filed by the appellants was partly allowed by the High Court.  

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the deceased was

aged 19 years, therefore, the multiplier applicable for this age group is ‘18’.

However, the Tribunal and the High Court have adopted the multiplier ‘15’, on

the  basis  of  the  age  of  the  mother  of  the  deceased.  In  addition,  it  is  also

submitted  that  the High Court  failed to  consider  the future prospects,  while

awarding the compensation. The learned counsel appearing for the insurer has

sought to justify the impugned judgment and order herein.  

6. Summary of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal: -  

Sl No: Details Amount  

1 Loss of Dependency  Rs.3,52,620.00

2 Funeral Expenses        Rs. 5,000.00

3 Loss of Estate, Love & Affection        Rs.15,000.00

TOTAL  Rs.3,72,620.00   7. While  calculating  the  loss  of  dependency  at  Rs.  3,52,620/-,  the  Tribunal

considered the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,918/- per month.  The age of the

mother i.e. 42 years was considered, in order to apply the multiplier ‘15’. In

addition, as the deceased was a bachelor, the Tribunal has reduced 50% of his

salary in lieu of his personal expenses.  The High Court had enhanced the award

to Rs. 5,02,610/-.

2

8. The  High Court  while  enhancing the  compensation,  did  not  consider  the

future prospects of the deceased. The material on record makes it evident that

the  deceased  was  self-employed.  The  Constitution  Bench  of  this  Court  in

National  Insurance  Company Limited  v.  Pranay Sethi  and Others1,  has

considered  the  issue  in  relation  to  future  prospects,  while  granting  the

compensation.  It was held as under:-  

“59.4 In case the deceased was self-employed or on  a  fixed  salary,  an  addition  of  40%  of  the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years.  An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age  of  50  to  60  years  should  be  regarded  as  the necessary  method  of  computation.  The  established income means the income minus the tax component.”

(emphasis supplied)

9. In the instant case, as the deceased was aged 19 years, an additional 40% of

the established income must be added while computation of the compensation.

In addition, 50% of the said amount has to be deducted in lieu of his personal

expenses, that he would have incurred to maintain himself as a bachelor, had he

been alive.  

10. Further, the High Court applied the multiplier at ‘15’, as it took the age of

the mother into consideration, and not that of the deceased. A three-Judge Bench

of this Court, in  Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited  v.

Mandala Yadagari  Goud and Others2,  held that  even if  the deceased is  a

1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2019) 5 SCC 554

3

bachelor, his age has to be taken into account to adopt a multiplier. The question

for consideration in this case was as under:  

“The  only  legal  issue  canvassed  before  us  in  these matters, which are in the nature of cross-appeals, is that in the case of a motor accident where there is death of a person,  who  is  a  bachelor,  whether  the  age  of  the deceased or the age of the dependents would be taken into account for calculating the multiplier.”

This question was answered in the following terms:

“12.  We are  convinced  that  there  is  no  need  to  once again  take  up  this  issue  settled  by  the  aforesaid judgments of three-Judge Benches 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.”

11. The  Constitution  Bench  in  Pranay  Sethi  (supra)  has  also  awarded

compensation under the conventional heads as under: -  

“59.8  Reasonable  figures  on  conventional  heads, namely,  loss of  estate,  loss  of  consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000, Rs.40,000 and Rs.15,000 respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.”

12.  We are of the view that the High Court has rightly determined monthly salary

of the deceased at Rs. 3,918. In addition, 40% of the actual salary income of the

deceased has to be added towards the future prospects of the deceased, as his age

was less  than 40 years.  Therefore,  the gross income of  the deceased must  be

calculated as:  

a. Before Deducting the personal living expenses:

4

Rs. 3,918 + (40% of the monthly income i.e Rs. 1567/-) = Rs.

5,485/-

Since  the  deceased  was  a  bachelor,  50% of  his  gross  income  must  be

deducted towards personal living expenses which must be calculated as:   

b. Rs.5,485 – (50% of 5485) = Rs. 2,743/-  

Thus,  the  compensation  payable  to  the  claimants  towards  loss  of

dependency is Rs. 5,92,488/-(Rs.2,743 x 12 x 18 = Rs. 5,92,488/-).  In addition,

the claimants are also entitled for a sum of Rs.70,000/- under the conventional

heads.   Thus,  the  total  compensation  payable  to  the  claimants  comes  to  Rs.

6,62,448/-.

13. The amount of Rs. 5,02,620/- awarded by the High Court, has to be deducted

from  the  aforesaid  amount,  therefore,  the  balance  compensation  payable  to  the

claimants comes to Rs. 1,59,868/-, which is rounded off to Rs. 1,60,000/-.

14. As  a  result,  the  appeal  succeeds  and  is  partly  allowed.  The  third

respondent/insurance company is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- with

simple interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of the claim petition till

the date of deposit. The respondent/insurance company is further directed to deposit

the aforesaid amount before the Tribunal within a period of two months from the

date  of  receipt  of  the copy of  this  judgment.  The first  appellant  is  permitted  to

withdraw the said amount.  

15. There will be no orders as to costs.

5

                   ……………………………J. (S. ABDUL NAZEER)

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

New Delhi; December 10, 2019.

6