The applicable multiplier for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 must be determined based on the age of the deceased, as established in the decisions of Pranay Sethi(supra) and Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121.

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellants are the claimants who filed a Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for claiming compensation on account of death of one Amit Kumar (the deceased) in a vehicular accident. The first two appellants are the parents of the deceased and the third appellant is the sister of the deceased.

3. On 04th September 2014, when the deceased was plying motor cycle, a bus insured with the respondent-insurance company gave a dash to the motor cycle of the deceased. As a result of the dash given by the bus, the deceased sustained grievous injuries which resulted in his death on 08th October 2014.

4. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal') granted compensation of Rs.35,52,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a by taking the income of the deceased at Rs.23,500/- per month and by applying multiplier of 18'. In the appeal preferred by the respondent-insurance company, by the impugned judgment and order, the High Court reduced the multiplier to 11'. The High Court calculated the multiplier on the basis of the age of the first appellant.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants, by relying upon a decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680 urged that multiplier ought to have been determined as per the age of the deceased and not as per the age of his mother. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-company supported the impugned judgment. He pointed out that compensation granted under the conventional heads of 'loss of consortium', 'funeral expenses' and 'loss of estate' is on the higher side.

6. We find that the Constitution Bench in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) held that applicable multiplier must be decided on the basis of age of the deceased. Therefore, in our view, the High Court committed an error by determining the multiplier on the basis of age of the first appellant. The Constitution Bench approved the view taken by this Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 insofar as applicability of the multiplier is concerned. Undisputedly, the age of the deceased was 24 years at the time of the death. Therefore, multiplier of 18' ought to have been applied. The appellants had adduced evidence of the employer of the deceased which proved that the deceased was regularly employed at the net salary of Rs.23,500/- per month. The employer did not depose that the deceased was employed on a fixed salary. Therefore, on account of future prospects of increase in income, 50% will have to be added to the salary. The High Court while accepting that the income of the deceased was Rs.23,500/- per month, did not consider the future prospects of increase in the income. As the deceased was a bachelor, 50% of the total income will have to be deducted on account of personal expenditure. In terms of the decision of this Court in the case of Pranay Sethi(supra), the appellants are entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- on account of loss of consortium. The appellants are also entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses.

7. Accordingly, the appellants shall be entitled to compensation as computed below :

8