The age of the deceased should be the basis for determining the multiplier in motor accident compensation cases, as established in previous judgments.

JUDGMENT :

ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.

Heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant/Reliance Insurance Company.

2. The appellant Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. who was impleded as the Opposite Party No. 1 in MAC Case No. 1349/2011 has preferred the present appeal assailing the judgment and award dated 5.5.2015 passed in MAC Case No. 1349/2011 awarding a compensation of Rs. 18,71,000/- in favour of the appellant on account of death of her deceased unmarried son in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 16.7.2011.

3. The respondent No. 1claimant filed the aforesaid motor accident claim case claiming compensation for death of her son in motor vehicular accident on 16.7.2011 at Sector 3 at about 1 : 20 A. M under Noonmati Police Station in the district of Kamrup(M), Assam. The claimant mother filed the aforesaid claim petition inter alia alleging that while the son of the claimant was proceeding from Mathgharia towards his home situated at Ananda Nagar by riding his motor cycle bearing registration No. AS-01-AU-5724, a Truck bearing Registration No. MP-20/HB-1584 knocked him down from his backside. As a result of the said accident, son of the claimant respondent No. 1 sustained severe injury on his person and finally succumbed to his injuries. The said offending vehicle was owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with the appellant Corporation.

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the Insurance company has challenged the same only on the ground that the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal committed serious error of law by applying multiplier corresponding to the age of the deceased by selecting 17 as multiplier instead of applying the multiplier corresponding to the age of the mother. It is the case of the appellant Insurance company that such decision is a deviation from settled position of law and such deviation has been made without giving any ground to justify the deviation and accordingly it is the case of the appellant Insurance Company that the deviation has resulted in over compensation to the claimant respondent No. 1. It is contended that the age of the mother is 48 years. Accordingly multiplier ought to have been 13 whereas the learned Tribunal has erroneously applied 17 as multiplier considering the age of the deceased being 28 years.

5. The appellant Insurance company has not disputed the income of the decease and his age. They have not also disputed the validity of the insurance or the validity of the driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle. They have also not disputed the occurrence as alleged by the claimant in the present appeal. Therefore in view of the aforesaid position of the appellant, this court needs to determine whether the learned Tribunal below has committed an error by applying multiplier of 17 corresponding to the age of the deceased.

6. By now it is well settled that the age of the deceased must be the basis for determining the multiplier even in case of the bachelor. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 determined and fixed the applicable multiplier corresponding to the age of the deceased. It was further held that multiplier should correspond to the age of the deceased. Such view was reaffirmed by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and affirmed that the age of the deceased required to be the basis for determining the multiplier. Subsequent to this the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mandala Yadagari Goud in (2019) 5 SCC 554 further held that even in the case of a bachelor the principle enunciated in the case of Sarala Verma and affirmed in Pranay Sethi is applicable.

7. Therefore, in the aforesaid backdrop this court could not but held that learned tribunal below has not committed any error in applying the multiplier as 1