The appropriate multiplier for disability compensation must reflect the actual lifespan of the claimant post-injury, particularly if death occurs due to unrelated causes.

JUDGMENT :

P. Krishna Kumar, J.

1. The common question arising in these appeals concerns the proper multiplier to be applied for assessing disability compensation in the case of a claimant who sustained injuries in a motor accident and later died from causes unrelated to the accident and injury. To be more precise, the issue is, whether in such cases the multiplier prescribed in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC) should be applied, or whether the multiplier should be limited to the actual number of years the person lived.

2. In Cholamandalam General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Shailaja, 2021 (3) KLT 371 this Court held that, though the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma, prescribed a standard procedure with regard to the application of multiplier, the multiplier is not to be mechanically adopted when the injured person in a personal injury case dies pending the claim proceedings due to reasons unconnected with the accident.

3. When these matters came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge, entertaining a doubt as to the correctness of the decision in Shailaja (supra), made the reference.

4. In the reference order, the learned Single Judge disagreed with the reasoning in Shailaja (supra) observing that the right to compensation arises the moment the injury occurs, and that a subsequent unrelated death does not affect the substantive right. Hence, the compensation must be determined in accordance with the standardized multiplier method laid down in Sarla Verma, and is not to be adjusted based on later events. While expressing this view, the learned Single Judge referred to paragraph 19 under the heading “Step 2” in Sarla Verma’s case. It reads as follows:

“Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. (Emphasis added)

It was further observed in the reference order that the life expectancy of the victim alone was not the criterion, but that the multiplier method, in a standardized form, was introduced by taking into account several imponderables in life and economic factors relevant to the adjudication of compensation. When such a system is introduced, deviating from it on the basis of the actual period during which the original claimant lived would defeat the very purpose of the standardized multiplier method. The learned Judge further observed that there may be cases in which the litigation would extend for more than 18 years — which is the highest multiplier to be applied — but that the Courts are not expected, in any event, to apply a multiplier higher than that.

5. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri.Mathews Jacob, Sri.P.Narayanan and Sri.D.Kishore, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri.Subhash Cyriac, appearing for the first respondent in M.A.C.A.No.1056/2012.

6. The multiplier method laid down in Sarla Verma and affirmed by the Constitution Bench in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 is essentially intended for fatal accident cases. It did not, in fact, prescribe a method for determining the multiplier in personal injury cases. In Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 and Rekha Jain v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2013) 8 SCC 389, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that compensati