1    

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

 CIVIL APPEAL NO  448  OF 2018  

[Arising out of SLP(C) No.26853 of 2016]    

SHRI NAGAR MAL AND ORS           ..Appellants  

VERSUS  

 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY   LTD. AND ORS            ..Respondents   

J U D G M E N T  

Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J  

1 The present appeal has arisen from a judgment of the High Court of  

Judicature for Rajasthan at its Jaipur bench confirming the award of the Motor  

Accident Claims Tribunal (M.A.C.T.).  

2 An accident took place on 15 November 2008 when at about 9 p.m. Sonu  

Kumar Goyal was proceeding on a motor cycle from Mandi Neem Ka Thana to  

his home. A truck bearing Registration No.RJ-32-GA-0398 dashed against the  

motor cycle as a result of which Sonu Kumar sustained grievous injuries and  

died on the spot. The third respondent is the registered owner of the motor  

vehicle which was insured with the first respondent.  The appellants filed a claim  

for compensation before the Tribunal. By its order dated 16 July 2013 the  

REPORTABLE

2    

Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver  

of the truck.  The insurer was held jointly and severally liable together with the  

owner and driver.    

3 While assessing the claim of compensation, the Tribunal noted that the  

deceased was a bachelor, aged 20 years.  On the income of the deceased, the  

Tribunal did not accept the certificates for the months of August, September  

and October 2008 produced by the first appellant who is the father of the  

deceased in support of the case that the deceased had a monthly earning of  

Rs 15,000/-.  The Tribunal indicated that the certificates have not been duly  

proved. The deceased was pursuing the professional Chartered Accountancy  

course. The Tribunal adopted an income of Rs.6,000/- per month and since the  

deceased was a bachelor, it deducted a sum of Rs 3,000/- per month towards  

personal expenses. A multiplier of 11 was applied on the basis of the age of the  

parents of the deceased.  Accordingly, the loss of dependency was computed  

at Rs 3,96,000/- and after addition of conventional heads, a total compensation  

of Rs.4,31,000/- was awarded.  

4 The appellants as well as the insurer filed the appeals before the High  

Court.  By its judgment dated 30 May 2016 the High Court has declined to  

interfere with the award of the Tribunal.  

5 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has assailed the  

award of compensation by urging that :

3    

(i) Both the Tribunal and the High Court erred in declining to accept the  

income certificates produced to indicate that the deceased had a monthly  

income of Rs 15,000/-;  

(ii) No addition on account of future prospects was made;  

(iii) The multiplier to be adopted should have been based on the age of the  

deceased and not on the age of the parents; and  

(iv) interest should have been awarded @ 9% p.a. instead of 6% p.a.  

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurer has  

supported the view which has been taken by the Tribunal and by the High Court  

and submitted that no case has been made out for interference by this court  

with the concurrent findings of both the courts below.    

6 The Tribunal has given cogent reasons for declining to accept the income  

certificates which were relied upon by the father of the deceased.  No witnesses  

were examined on behalf of the companies which were alleged to have issued  

the certificates to prove the certificates.  Evidently there was a failure to  

establish that the deceased, who was a student pursuing his C.A. was in receipt  

of a monthly income of Rs 15,000/-.  Hence, we are of the view that the  

assessment of income by the Tribunal cannot be faulted.    

7 However, we find merit in the submission which has been urged on behalf  

of the appellants that the Tribunal failed to apply the correct multiplier and erred  

in not granting the benefit of future prospects in computing the income of the

4    

deceased and the loss of dependency.  Having due regard to the judgment  

delivered by the Constitution Bench of this Court in National Insurance  

Company Limited v Pranay Sethi1 and in Sarla Verma v Delhi Transport  

Corporation2 the correct multiplier should be 17 having regard to the age of  

the deceased.  An addition of 40 per cent towards future prospects would also  

be warranted in terms of the judgment of the Constitution Bench.  On this basis  

and since the deceased was a bachelor, the loss of dependency would work  

out to Rs 8,56,800/-.  The appellants would be entitled to an amount of Rs  

15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs 15,000/- towards funeral expenses. The  

award of compensation accordingly stands quantified at            Rs 8,86,800/-.   

The appellants are allowed interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of the filing of the  

petition before the M.A.C.T. till realization.    

8  The appeal is accordingly allowed.  There shall be no order as to  

costs.    

...........................................CJI                  [DIPAK MISRA]      

                                                    ...........................................J                  [A M KHANWILKAR]      

                                                    ...........................................J                  [Dr  D Y  CHANDRACHUD]    New Delhi;  January 19, 2018   

                                                           1 (2017) 13 SCALE 12  2 (2009) 6 SCC 121