IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that compensation in motor accident cases must be calculated using the deceased's age for the multiplier, including future prospects and consortium.

JUDGEMENT:

Somasekhar Sundaresan J.

1. This First Appeal is a challenge to an impugned Judgment and Award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangli (“MACT”) dated 13th August, 2015 (“Impugned Judgement”) whereby the Appellants, the next of kin of a 19-year old Sagar Gavade, who died in a motor accident, seek enhancement of the compensation awarded.

2. At the core of the challenge lie three contentions of the Appellants namely:-

(a) incorrect reliance on the age of the parents of the deceased, instead of reliance on the age of the deceased, in arriving at the multiplier factor;

(b) non-consideration of filial consortium;

(c) and non-consideration of loss of future prospects in computing the compensation.

3. On 7th January, 2023, a Learned Single Judge issued notice and indicated that an endevour would be made to dispose of the First Appeal at the admission stage. By consent of the parties, on 19th August, 2024, the Appeal was taken up for final hearing and disposal.

4. Mr. Tejpal S. Ingale, Learned Counsel for the Appellants (the parents and brother of the deceased) took me through the record to point out that the MACT had awarded compensation in the cumulative sum of Rs.2,54,000/-. The Respondents have not preferred any Appeal, meaning thereby, they do not quarrel with the insurable interest or with the fact that compensation was payable. However, Mr. Ingale would seriously fault the Impugned Judgment for evidently adopting a wrong multiplier of ‘13’ by taking into account the age of the deceased’s parents instead of factoring in the age of the deceased, which would have led to a multiplier of ‘18’. At the relevant time, the deceased’s parents were aged 52 years and 47 years respectively whereas the deceased was aged 19 years. Consequently, he would submit, in terms of the computation table stipulated by the Supreme Court of India in Sarla Verma And Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation And Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 (“Sarla Verma”), the multiplier factor must necessarily depend on the age of the deceased rather than the age of the deceased’s parents. Evidently, Sarla Verma has been noticed in the Impugned Judgment but the principles stipulated therein have been ignored.

5. Next, Mr. Ingale would submit that it is now trite law the concept of “consortium” has to be applied when computing compensation in motor accident cases. Likewise, conventional heads such as loss of estate, and funeral expenses must also be accounted for, he would submit, and consequently, the Impugned Judgment lends itself to be corrected in this First Appeal. In this regard Mr. Ingale would advert to the conclusions recorded in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 (“Pranay Sethi”), rendered by a Constitution Bench of five Judges of the Supreme Court, which also endorsed the multiplier table stipulated in Sarla Verma.

6. Finally, and this is the most contentious difference between the parties, according to Mr. Ingale, the MACT was totally wrong in rejecting the factum of the deceased being employed in a garment shop despite noticing that the shop owner who had employed the deceased at a daily wage of Rs.200/- having been deposed and cross-examined at length. The only ground on which the deceased’s employment on a daily wage has been rejected, Mr. Ingale would submit, is that the MACT found the shop owner to be non-compliant with applicable labour law and did not demonstrate evidence of procedural compliance with requirements imposed on employers.

7. Mr. Sandip Jinsiwale, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 4 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the insurance company), would fairly state that the facets of the wrong multiplier factor by erroneous reference to the age of the parents (as opposed to the age of the deceased), and the facet of future prospects are now well covered by judgments of the Supreme Court. Mr. Jinsiwale would, however, defend the Impugned Judgment insofar as it returned findings that the Appellants had