The court applied precedents to determine the appropriate multiplier and ruled that the element of future prospects was uncalled for due to lack of formal proof of engagement in gainful employment by the deceased.

R.K. GAUBA, J.

1. On 24.04.2011 Ms. Jaspreet Kaur, a bachelor, 20 years old, died in a motor vehicular accident that occurred due to negligent driving of water tanker bearing registration No. DL-1GA-9830, admittedly insured with the appellant insurance company (insurer) against third party risk for the period in question. Her parents (first and second respondents), collectively, the claimants, brought accident claim case (MACP No. 360/2011) instituted on 01.09.2011 seeking compensation.

2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal), by judgment dated 05.04.2014, awarded compensation in the total sum of Rs. 14,02,812/- calculating it thus:-    

3. The insurance company was called upon to pay with interest @ seven and half per cent (7.5%) per annum.

4. The insurer questions the computation on the ground loss of dependency worked out is erroneous as income of the deceased was assumed on the basis of minimum wages (7826/-) to which element of future prospects was added without justification and that the multiplier of 18 was adopted ignoring the fact that the claim was by the parents in the case of death of a bachelor.

5. Both the contentions of the insurance company must be accepted.

6. It is noted that the claimant mother (the first respondent) was 38 years old as on 01.01.2008, as per voter identity card, copy of which is available at page 177 of the tribunal’s record. This would mean, she was 44 years old on the date of accident occurred.

7. On the issue of choice of the multiplier in the case of death of a bachelor, this Court in case titled Reliance General Insurance Company Limited vs. Gomti and Others, MAC. APP. No. 467/2016, decided on 24th August, 2017, has observed as under:-

“6. The question as to the choice of multiplier in cases of deaths of bachelors, had come up before this Court in MAC. Appeal No. 431/2016 National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Mohd. Siddique and Others decided on 18th July, 2017, where it was urged on behalf of the insurance company that the law laid down by the Supreme Court in cases of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation vs. Susamma Thomas and Others, (1994) 2 SCC 176 and U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others vs. Trilok Chandra and Others, (1996) 4 SCC 362 continues to prevail as the binding precedent. This Court, after examining the issue in light of the decisions in aforementioned cases and in the cases of Reshma Kumari vs. Madan Mohan, (2013) 9 SCC 65 and noting the dicta in Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community and Another vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, (2005) 2 SCC 67, Safiya Bee vs. Mohd. Vajahath Hussain @ Fasi, (2011) 2 SCC 94 and Union of India and Others vs. S.K. Kapoor, (2011) 4 SCC 589, held as under:-

16. Since the decision in Trilok Chandra and Others (supra) by a bench of three Hon’ble Judges is prior in time in relation to the decisions in Reshma Kumari (supra) and Munna Lal Jain (supra), it is the statement of law on choice of multiplier in the former which is to be taken as the binding precedent. Thus, this court will follow the dictum in the said judgment and adopt the multiplier according to the age of the deceased or that of the claimants, whichever is higher.”

8. Therefore, the multiplier has to be chosen on the basis of age of the mother, since it is higher, the appropriate multiplier in the present case being 14.

9. In the case reported as Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, Supreme Court, inter-alia, ruled that the element of future prospects of increase in income will not be granted in cases where the deceased was “self em