1

Reportable

          IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6600 OF 2015

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE  INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.        ... APPELLANT  

               VS.

MANDALA YADAGARI GOUD & ORS.     ... RESPONDENTS

WITH

C.A.No. 1954/2019 @ SLP(C)NO.5603/2019 @ CC No. 11685/2016,  

C.A.NO.178/2017 &  

C.A.No.1953/2019 @ SLP(C)NO.19797/2015

    J U D G M E N T

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

C.A.No.6600/2015 & C.A. NO.  1954/  2019 @ SLP(C)  5603/  2019 @ CC No.11685/2016  

1. 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.

2

2. The  appellant  in  C.A.No.6600/2015  is  the  insurance

company, whose counsel submits that it is the age of the

dependents which has to be taken into account and thus the

High Court has fallen into an error by taking the multiplier

on the basis of the age of the deceased.  

3. To  support  his  contention,  learned  counsel,  for

reference purposes, filed two compilations of judgments one

against him and one in his favour.  We put a specific query

to the learned counsel as to whether there are any three

Judge Bench decisions dealing with the issue, as there was

no purpose in looking at multiplicity of judgments, and what

was the last view adopted by this Court in this behalf.

4. Learned counsel conceded that a three Judge bench of

this Court in  Sube Singh & Anr. Vs.  Shaym Singh (Dead) &

Ors.1, looked into this issue and has opined that it is the

age  of  the  deceased  which  should  be  the  basis  of  the

multiplier.  However, his contention is that a reading of

this judgment would show that reliance has been placed on

the earlier judgment in  Munna Lal Jain & Anr. Vs.  Vipin

Kumar Sharma & Ors.2, to come to this conclusion.  Munna Lal

Jain (supra)  in  turn  relied  upon  the  judgment  in  Sarla

Verma (Smt.) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.3,

which  view  is  stated  to  have  been  affirmed  by  the

1 (2018) 3 SCC 18 2 (2015) 6 SCC 347 3 (2009) 6 SCC 121

3

Constitution Bench in  National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.

Pranay Sethi & Ors.4  It  was  submitted that a sequential

error has taken place as  Sarla Verma (supra) did not deal

with  the  case  of  a  deceased  bachelor  and  thus,  the

imprimatur given in Pranay Sethi case could be of no avail.

Thus, a mere affirmation of the views in Sube Singh (supra)

also does not settle this legal position.  On the other

hand, there are two Judge Bench judgments taking a contra

view that the age of the dependents is what has to be the

basis for multiplier and not the age of the deceased in the

case of death of a bachelor.  He also made a reference to

one order of a three Judge Bench in  New India Assurance

Company Ltd. Vs. Shanti Pathak (Smt.) & Ors.5, but that one

is indisputably an adjudication on given facts.

5. Insofar  as  the  appeal  filed  by  the  claimants  are

concerned, it is not in dispute that 50% has been granted

for future prospects, and that is the only aspect before us

seeking an enhancement of the same.  In this behalf it is

pointed out  to us  that actually  40% ought  to have  been

awarded in terms of Pranay Sethi case (supra).

6. We  have  given  our  thoughtful  consideration  to  the

matters in issue.

4 (2017) 16 SCC 680 5 (2007) 10 SCC 1

4

7. The concept of insurance for a motor vehicle is to

cover risk in case of an accident.  The insurance policy

covers  personal  risk  of  injury or death, including for

third  parties.   The  premium  charged  in  this  behalf  is

uniform.

8. The  judicial  pronouncements  of  this  Court  have

endeavoured  to  devise  a  standard  formula,  so  far  as

possible, in respect of the calculation of the amount of

compensation  qua  various  components.   The  amount  of

compensation determined is to be paid to the claimants who

are dependents in case of a death of a person based on what

the deceased would have contributed to their support.  The

amount thus received by the dependents in turn becomes a

part of the estate as they may live longer or may be younger

than the age limits taken into account for calculation of a

multiplier  to  be  applied  in  such  a  situation.   In  the

context of liability to pay compensation on the principle of

no  fault,  as  enunciated  under  Section  140  of  the  Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988, thus, it was observed by this Court that

even if there is no loss of dependency, the quantification

cannot be below that amount and to that extent the amount

would form a part of the estate of the deceased6.

9. The  focus  for  determination  of  such  claim  is  the

deceased  and  what  would  be  his  contribution  towards  the

6  See Manjuri Bera (Smt) v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. And Anr., (2007) 10 SCC 643

5

dependents would he to be alive, for the benefits of the

dependents.  It is trite to say, and in fact conceded by the

learned counsel for the insurance company, that in case the

deceased is a married person, it is the age of the deceased

which is to be taken into account.  The question is whether

in case the deceased is a bachelor, a different principle

for  calculation  of  the  multiplier  should  be  applied  by

shifting the focus to the age of the claimants?  We are of

the view that the answer to this question should be in the

negative.

10. We may also note the importance of applying uniform

settled  principle  to  such  cases.   Certainty  of  law  is

important.   Once  the  law  is  settled,  it  should  not  be

repeatedly  changed  as  that  itself  causes  confusion  and

litigation.  It is with this objection that this Court has

endeavoured to settle legal principles in respect of the

matter in question.   

11. 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.

6

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 &

Ors. Vs.  Madan  Mohan  &  Anr.7.   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 Reshma Kumari

categorically states that it does not want to revisit the

law settled in Sarla Verma case in this behalf.

12. 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.

13.  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.   

7 (2013) 9 SCC 65

7

14. The  aforesaid  being  the  only  issue  which  has  been

raised by the insurance company, we find the appeal filed by

the insurance company without merit.

15. We have already noticed that insofar as the claimants

are concerned, they have already been granted more than a

reasonable amount for future prospects and on that account

also no interference is called for in the impugned judgment.

16. The  result  is  that  both  the  appeals  are  dismissed

leaving the  parties to  bear their  own costs.    Pending

application, if any, stands disposed of.

C.A.No.1953/2019 @ SLP(C)NO.19797/2015 :

17. In view of the judgment delivered today in Civil Appeal

No.6600/2015  titled  as  M/s.  Royal  Sundaram  Alliance

Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.  Mandala Yadagari Gold & Ors.,

opining that it is the age of the deceased and not such of

the dependents in case of the death of a bachelor which is

to be the basis for the multiplier, this appeal is also

liable to  be dismissed  as this  is the  only plea  urged.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

8

C.A.No.178/2017

18. In view of the judgment delivered today in Civil Appeal

No.6600/2015  titled  as  M/s.  Royal  Sundaram  Alliance

Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Mandala Yadagari Gold & Ors., the

multiplier in the present case will be 16, and not as per

the impugned order, based on the age of the deceased.  The

amount now payable in view thereof would be as under :

Sl.No. Particulars MACT High Court Payable 1. Salary Rs.7242/- Rs.7242/- Rs.7242/- 2. Annual  

Income 86,904 (7242x12) 86,904 (7242x12) 86,904 (7242x12)

3. Add Future  Prospects  

Nil Nil 50% = 1,30,356/-

4. Less : 1/3 50% 50% = 65,178 5. Multiplier 8

(on the basis of  average age of the  parents  = 57  1/2  years

11 (Average age of  parents 54 & 53  years)

16 (Age of the  deceased) (65,178X16 =  10,42,848)

6. Loss of  companion- ship

2000/- 2000/- 30,000/-

7. Total 4,65,488/- 4,79,972/- 10,72,848/- 8. Difference Nil Nil 5,92,876/- 9. Interest 9% 9% 9%

19. We  may  note  that  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the

respondent also sought to canvas that the only change being

on account of the multiplier, that plea was not even raised

in the appeal.  We, however, find that ground (4) of the

special leave petition is wide enough to cover that issue.

The  appeal  is  thus  allowed  to  the  aforesaid  extent.

9

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

...........................J. [S.A. BOBDE]

...........................J. [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL]

...........................J. [MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR]

New Delhi; April 09, 2019.