IMPORTANT POINT
It is the age of the deceased which has to be taken into account and not the age of the dependents.

JUDGMENT :

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. 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., (2018) 3 SCC 18, 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., (2015) 6 SCC 347, 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., (2009) 6 SCC 121 which view is stated to have been affirmed by the Constitution Bench in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680. 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., (2007) 10 SCC 1, 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.

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 principl