REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4921 OF 2011
[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 21418 of 2010]
National Insurance Co. Ltd. .... Appellant
Versus
Shyam Singh and Ors. .... Respondents
JUDGMENT
Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated
15.03.2010 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at
Jabalpur in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4867 of 2009, whereby
the High Court had partially allowed the appeal filed by the
Respondent No. 3 and 4 herein, against the award dated
28.08.2009 passed by the Second Additional Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Satna, Madhya Pradesh and enhanced the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that Respondent No. 3 and 4
are parents of one Yogendra Kumar Pathak, who was 19
years of age and on 01.11.2007 while on his way to his
village Kor Gaon, he alongwith his sister were travelling in
jeep No. MP 19-A 930. The said jeep wasbeing driven by
Respondent No. 1 and met with an accident near Dhal
Factory General Road due to rash and negligent driving by
the Respondent No. 1which resulted in his death on the spot.
FIR was lodged at Police Station, Civil Lines, Satna against
the driver under Sections 229 and 304-A of the Indian Penal
Code. His dead body was taken to his village from the
hospital on payment of Rs. 800/- and amount of Rs.
25000/- was spent on cremation.
4. It was stated in the claim petition that before his death, the
deceased was a young man of robust health and was working
as mechanical fitter in Priya Engineering Prism Cement
Factory on the salary of Rs. 4500/- per month and in total
2
was getting Rs. 6000/- a month inclusive of salary and over
time allowance and was supporting his parents financially.
After his death, Respondents No. 3 and 4 have been rendered
without any financial support and have been deprived of the
association and pleasure of having a family and grand
children in future.
5. The M.A.C.T., Satna, came to a finding that the deceased was
earning Rs. 3000/- per month and deducted 50 % therefrom
towards personal expenses, as he was a bachelor.
Considering the age of the parents which was 56 and 55
years, applied the Multiplier of 9, and awarded a total
compensation of Rs. 1,72,000/- (Rs. 1,62,000/- towards the
loss of dependency + Rs. 10,000/- towards conventional
heads) along with 6 % interest per annum from the date of
claim petition. Being aggrieved, the Respondent No. 3 and 4
preferred miscellaneous appeal No. 4867 of 2009 before the
High Court for enhancement of amount of compensation
stating that the income of the deceased was Rs. 4500/- and
not Rs. 3000/- as determined by the Tribunal, and a
multiplier of 16 instead of 9 was supposed to be applied. The
3
High Court relying on the judgment of this Court in the case
of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others v. Delhi Transport
Corporation and Another (2009) 6 SCC 121, enhanced the
multiplier to 18 instead of 9 and granted expenses to the
tune of Rs. 15000/- under conventional heads. Accordingly,
the High Court enhanced the amount of compensation from
Rs. 1,72,000/- to Rs. 3,39,000/-
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted
that the High Court had failed to correctly apply the ratio
laid in the case of Sarla Verma case (supra.). It was further
contended that this Court has repeatedly held that in case
where an unmarried young man dies, the average age of the
parents will be taken for determining the multiplier and not
the age of the deceased. In the aforesaid case, it has been
clearly stated that for the age group of 56-60 years the
multiplier should be 8, as has been correctly applied by the
Tribunal by taking the average age of the Respondents 3 and
4 who are 55 and 56 years of age. It was further submitted
that assuming, though not admitting, even if the age of the
deceased is to be considered for determining the multiplier,
4
the correct multiplier should have been 16 instead of 18,
which is applicable to the age group between 15 to 20 years.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the
Respondents No. 3 and 4 supported the impugned judgment
and submitted that the High Court correctly enhanced the
multiplier keeping in view the age of the deceased which was
19 years.
8. The assessment of damages and compensation takes into
account a number of imponderables. This has been held by
this court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State
Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Mrs.
Susamma Thomas and Ors. (AIR 1994 SC 1631) as: -
"The assessment of damages to compensate the
dependents is beset with difficulties because
from the nature of things, it has to take into
account many imponderables, e.g. the life
expectancy of the deceased and the dependents,
the amount that the deceased would have
earned during the remainder of his life, the
amount that he would have contributed to the
dependents during that period, the chances that
the deceased may not have lived or the
dependents may not live up to the estimated
remaining period of their life expectancy, the
5
chances that the deceased might have got better
employment or income or might have lost his
employment or income together etc."
9. This Court in the case of Vijay Shankar Shinde and Ors.
v. State of Maharashtra (2008) 2 SCC 670, after referring
to the earlier judgments of this Court, in detail, dealt with
the law with regard to determination of the multiplier in a
similar situation as in the present case. The said findings of
this Court are as under:
"6. We have given anxious consideration to these
contentions and are of the opinion that the same
are devoid of any merits. Considering the law
laid down in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v.
Charlie AIR 2005 SC 2157, it is clear that the
choice of multiplier is determined by the age of
the deceased or claimants whichever is higher.
Admittedly, the age of the father was 55 years.
The question of mother's age never cropped up
because that was not the contention raised even
before the Trial Court or before us. Taking the
age to be 55 years, in our opinion, the courts
below have not committed any illegality in
applying the multiplier of 8 since the father was
running 56th year of his life.
7. The learned Counsel relying on the 2nd
Schedule of the Act contended that the deceased
being about 16 or 17 years of age, a multiplier of
16 or 17 should have been granted. It is
undoubtedly true that Section 163A was brought
on the Statute book to shorten the period of
litigation. The burden to prove the negligence or
6
fault on the part of driver and other allied
burdens u/s 140 or 166 were really cumbersome
and time consuming. Therefore as a part of social
justice, a system was introduced via Section 163A
wherein such burden was avoided and thereby a
speedy remedy was provided. The relief u/s
163-A has been held not to be additional but
alternate. The Schedule provided has been
threadbare discussed in various pronouncements
including Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. AIR 2004 SC 2107. 2nd
Schedule is to be used not only referring to age of
victim but also other factors relevant therefore.
Complicated questions of facts and law arising in
accident cases cannot be answered all times by
relying on mathematical equations. In fact in U.P.
State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok
Chandra (1996) 4 SCC 362, Ahmedi, J. (As the
Chief Justice then was) has pointed out the
shortcomings in the said Schedule and has held
that the Schedule can only be used as a guide. It
was also held that the selection of multiplier
cannot in all cases be solely dependent on the
age of the deceased. If a young man is killed in
the accident leaving behind aged parents who
may not survive long enough to match with a
high multiplier provided by the 2nd Schedule,
then the Court has to offset such high multiplier
and balance the same with the short life
expectancy of the claimants. That precisely has
happened in this case. Age of the parents was
held as a relevant factor in case of minor's death
in recent decision in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
v. Syed Ibrahim and Ors. AIR 2008 SC 103. In our
considered opinion, the Courts below rightly
struck the said balance."
7
10. In our view, the dictum laid down in Vijay Shankar Shinde
(supra) is applicable to the present case on all fours.
Accordingly, we hold that the Tribunal had rightfully applied
the multiplier of 8 by taking the average of the parents of the
deceased who were 55 and 56 years.
11. Thus, the present appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent
and the award passed by the Tribunal is restored. No costs.
............................................J
[ Dr. Mukundakam Sharma ]
............................................J
[ Anil R. Dave ]
New Delhi,
July 4, 2011.
8
