2018 INSC 0078
1
    REPORTABLE 
         
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.7176 OF 2015
Sube Singh and Anr. ….   Appellants
                        
Versus
Shyam Singh (Dead) and Ors. ….Respondents
J U D G M E N T
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.
1. The   sole   question   to   be   answered   in   this   appeal   is:
whether the High Court was right in applying multiplier 14 for
determining   compensation   amount   in   a   motor   accident   claim
case  in   reference  to   the   age   of  parents  of   the   deceased  whilst
relying   on   the   decision   of   this   Court   in   Ashvinbhai
Jayantilal Modi Vs. Ramkaran Ramchandra Sharma and
Anr. 1
?  
2. Briefly   stated,   in   a   motor   accident   which   occurred   on
22.09.2009, Ajit Singh, who was at the relevant time 23 years
of age died. His parents, who were in the age group of 40 to 45
1
  2015 (2) SCC 180

2
years,   filed   a   petition   claiming   compensation.   The   Motor
Accident   Claims   Tribunal   held   that   the   established   income  of
the   deceased   was   around   Rs.4,200/­   per   month   and   after
deduction   of   50%   as   the   deceased   was   unmarried,   calculated
the   same   as   Rs.2,100/­   per   month.     Thereafter,   it   applied
multiplier   15,   taking   the   age   of   the   “parents   of   the   deceased”
into   consideration.   This   was   challenged   by   the   appellants   by
way of an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
at   Chandigarh,   being   FAO   No.330   of   2012   (O&M)   which   was
partly   allowed   in   relation   to   other   heads   of   compensation.   As
regards   multiplier   applied   for   determination   of   loss   of   future
income,   the   High   Court   held   that   multiplier   14   will   be
applicable.   For   that,   the   High   Court   relied   on   the   decision   of
this   Court   of   (Two   Judge   Bench)   in   Ashvinbhai   Jayantilal
Modi   (supra).   Resultantly,   the   appellants   have   filed   the
present   appeal,   questioning   the   correctness   of   the   conclusion
so reached by the High Court.  
3. According   to   the   appellants,   the   correct   multiplier   to   be
applied in the facts of the present case is 18, as the deceased

3
was  only   23  years  of  age on  the  date  of  accident.  To  buttress
this   submission,   reliance   is   placed   on   the   decision   in   Sarla
Verma (Smt.) and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
And   Anr. 2
.   Reliance   is   also   placed   on   the   recent   judgment   of
this   Court   (Three   Judge   Bench)   in   the   case   of   Munna   Lal
Jain   and   Anr.   Vs.   Vipin   Kumar   Sharma   and   Ors. 3
,   which
has   restated   the   legal   position   that   multiplier   should   depend
on   the   age   of   the   deceased   and   not   on   the   age   of   the
dependents. 
4. On the basis of the finding recorded by the Tribunal and
affirmed by the High Court, it is evident that the deceased was
23 years of age on the date of accident i.e. 22.09.2009. He was
unmarried   and   his   parents   who   filed   the   petition   for
compensation   were   in   the   age   group   of   40   to   45   years.   The
High Court, relying on the decision in the case of   Ashvinbhai
Jayantilal   Modi   (supra),   held   that   multiplier   14   will   be
applicable in the present case, keeping in mind the age of the
2
  2009 (6) SCC 121
3
  2015 (6) SCC 347

4
parents   of   the   deceased.   The   legal   position,   however,   is   no
more   res   integra.     In   the   case   of   Munna   Lal   Jain   (supra)
decided   by   a   three   Judge   Bench   of   this   Court,   it   is   held   that
multiplier   should   depend   on   the   age   of   the   deceased   and   not
on   the   age   of   the   dependants.   We   may   usefully   refer   to   the
exposition   in   paragraph   Nos.   11   and   12   of   the   reported
decision, which read thus:
“ 11. The   remaining   question   is   only   on   multiplier.   The
High Court following Santosh Devi (supra), has taken 13
as   the   multiplier.   Whether   the   multiplier   should   depend
on the age of the dependents or that of the deceased, has
been hanging fire for sometime; but that has been given a
quietus   by   another   three   Judge   Bench   decision   in
Reshma Kumar (supra). It was held that the multiplier is
to be used with reference to the age of the deceased. One
reason   appears   to   be   that   there   is   certainty   with   regard
to   the   age   of   the   deceased   but   as   far   as   that   of
dependents   is   concerned,   there   will   always   be   room   for
dispute as to whether the age of the eldest or youngest or
even the average etc. is to be taken. To quote
“ 36.In   Sarla   Verma,   this   Court   has
endeavoured   to   simplify   the   otherwise
complex   exercise   of   assessment   of   loss   of
dependency   and   determination   of
compensation   in   a   claim   made   under   Section
166. It has been rightly stated in Sarla Verma
that   the   claimants   in   case   of   death   claim   for
the purposes of  compensation  must establish
(a)   age   of   the   deceased.   (b)   income   of   the
deceased;  and (c) the number of dependents.
To   arrive   at   the   loss   of   dependency,   the

5
Tribunal   must   consider   (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. We
do   not   think   it   is   necessary   for   us   to   revisit
the   law   on   the   point   as   we   are   in   full
agreement with the view in Sarla Verma.”
12. In   Sarla   Verma   (supra),   at   paragraph­19   a   two­
Judge Bench dealt with this aspect in Step 2. To quote:
“ 19.xxxx xxxxxx  xxxx 
Step 2 (ascertaining the multiplier)
Having regard to the age of the deceased and
period   of   active   career,   the   appropriate
multiplier   should   be   selected.   This   does   not
mean   ascertaining   the   number   of   years   he
would   have   lived   or   worked   out   for   the
accident   having   regard   to   several
imponderables in life and economic factors, a
table   of   multipliers   with   reference   to   be   age
has   been   identified   by   this   Court.   The
multiplier   should   be   chosen   from   the   said
table   with   reference   to   the   age   of   the
deceased.”
Considering   the   aforementioned   principle   expounded   in   Sarla
Verma   (supra),   which   has   been   affirmed   by   the   Constitution
Bench of this Court in   National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Pranay   Sethi   and   Ors. 4
,   the   appellants   are   justified   in
insisting for applying  multiplier  18. 
4
  AIR 2017 SC 5157

6
5.       A priori, we direct the respondents to pay compensation  by
applying 18 multiplier, instead of 14 applied by the High Court.
In   other   words,   considering   the   amount   of   annual   contribution
to the deceased’s family determined at Rs.37,800/­ and applying
multiplier   18,   the   compensation   would   work   out   to
Rs.6,80,400/­   (Rupees   six   lakh   eighty   thousand   four   hundred
only),   instead   of   Rs.   5,29,200/­   determined   by   the   High   Court.
The   amount   of   compensation   under  other   heads   determined  by
the High Court in paragraph 5 of the impugned judgment would
remain undisturbed. The rate of interest is, however, modified to
9% (nine percent) per annum instead of 6% per annum  granted
by   the   Tribunal   and   High   Court.   The   order   passed   by   the   High
Court stands modified to the aforementioned extent.
6.       Accordingly,   the   appeal   is   allowed   in   the   aforementioned
terms with no order as to costs.   
.………………………….CJI.
        (Dipak Misra)
…………………………..….J.
                 (A.M. Khanwilkar)
…………………………..….J.
         (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud)
New Delhi;
February 09, 2018.