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 judgement dated 19th October, 2016, passed by the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, whereby the appeal filed by the respondent-Insurance 1 REPORTABLE Digitally signed by KAVITA PAHUJA Date: 2024.03.23 13:57:32 IST Reason:

Signature Not Verified Company challenging its liability to pay compensation was partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai1, vide order dated 10th July, 2015, estimated as ₹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 ₹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 ₹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 ₹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 judgement dated 10th January, 2017, the High Court reassessed the income of the deceased and enhanced it to ₹12,194/- (Rupees 1 For short the ‘MACT’ 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 ₹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 v. Shyam Singh (Dead) and Others2, Munna Lal Jain and Another v. Vipin Kumar Sharma and Others3 and Reshma Kumari and Others v. Madan Mohan and Another4, 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 Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others v. DTC and Another5. The Constitution Bench in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Other6 has also 2 (2018) 3 SCC 18 3 (2015) 6 SCC 347 4 (2013) 9 SCC 65 5 (2009) 6 SCC 121 6 (2017) 16 SCC 680 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 Sund