IMPORTANT POINT
Choice of multiplier – It is age of deceased which ought to be taken into consideration and not age of dependants for arriving at the multiplier.

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. The issue raised in these appeals relates to fixing of the age of the deceased for applying a multiplier for the purposes of computing the compensation payable to the claimants.

3. The appellants (parents of the deceased, Kartik Avlani) in Civil Appeals @ Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 13093 of 2017 are aggrieved by the judgment dated 19th October, 2016, passed by the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, whereby the appeal filed by the respondent-Insurance Company challenging its liability to pay compensation was partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai¹ [for short the ‘MACT’] vide order dated 10th July, 2015, estimated as Rs. 20,70,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Seventy Thousand) with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition, till realization, was slashed to Rs. 12,82,500/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Eighty Two Thousand and Five Hundred) on accepting the plea taken by the respondent-Insurance Company that in the case of an unmarried person, it is not the age of the deceased, but the age of the parents, who are the claimants, that should be relevant. In the instant case, the age of the deceased was 23 years at the time of the accident and it was proved that he was working as a Manager in an investment firm.

4. In Civil Appeal @ Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 13072 of 2017, the age of the deceased (Nilesh Arun Patil) was 28 years. The claimants are the parents and brothers of the deceased. The MACT assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand) per month and applied a multiplier of 17. After extending the benefit of future prospects and loss of dependency, the compensation awarded by the MACT was fixed at Rs. 6,37,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Thirty Seven Thousand) with interest @ 7.5 % from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation. In an appeal preferred by the appellants before the High Court, vide impugned judgment dated 10th January, 2017, the High Court reassessed the income of the deceased and enhanced it to Rs. 12,194/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand One Hundred and Ninety Four) per month. However, the High Court interfered with the multiplier applied by the MACT and instead of applying the multiplier of 17, reduced it to 13. The reason for the High Court to have changed the multiplier from 17 to 13 was that the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants being his parents, the choice of multiplier had to be assessed on the basis of the age of the parents and not the age of the deceased. As a result, the amount awarded by the High Court was Rs. 14,29,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand) with interest @ 7.5 % per annum.

5. We may note that the issue as to whether the age of the deceased that ought to be taken into consideration for calculation of the estimated compensation and not the age of the dependents, is no longer res integra. There are series of decisions of this Court in Sube Singh and Another vs. Shyam Singh (Dead) and Others, (2018) 3 SCC 18, Munna Lal Jain and Another vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and Others, (2015) 6 SCC 347 and Reshma Kumari and Others vs. Madan Mohan and Another, (2013) 9 SCC 65 where it has been held that it is the age of the deceased and not the age of the parents that would be the clinching factor for calculating the multiplier to be applied for estimating the compensation payable to the claimants. The aforesaid decisions were followed Smt. Sarla Verma and Others vs. DTC and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121. The Constitution Bench in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 has also been referred to in Sube Singh (supra) on the aspect of calculation of the multiplier applicable in such a case. A recent decision in the case of Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited vs. Mandala Yadagari Goud and Others, (2019) 5 SCC 554 has reiterated the same position as observed in the ca