M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. versus MANDALA YADAGARI GOUD & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 6 S.C.R. 941 · Decided: 09-04-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.A. BOBDE · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
941
          M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE
                                      COMPANY LTD.
v.
MANDALA YADAGARI GOUD & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.6600 of 2015)
    APRIL 09, 2019
[S. A. BOBDE, SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Accident – Calculation of a multiplier – Where
there is death of a person, who is a bachelor, in that case the
multiplier is to be calculated on basis of the age of deceased or age
of the dependents – Appellant contended that it is the age of the
dependents which has to be taken into account – Held: This issue is
settled by the  judgments of  three Judge Bench of Supreme Court in
Sube Singh & Anr. v. Shyam Singh (Dead) & Ors., Munna Lal Jain &
Anr. v. Vipin Kumar Sharma & Ors., Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan
Mohan & Anr. and also judgment of the Constitution Bench in
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. that it is the
age of the deceased which has to be taken into account and not the
age of the dependents – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s.140.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1. The judicial pronouncements of this Court have
endeavoured to devise a standard formula, so far as possible, in
respect of the calculation of the amount of compensation qua
various components.  The amount of compensation determined
is to be paid to the claimants who are dependents in case of a
death of a person based on what the deceased would have
contributed to their support.  The amount thus received by the
dependents in turn becomes a part of the estate as they may live
longer or may be younger than the age limits taken into account
for calculation of a multiplier to be applied in such a situation.  In
the context of liability to pay compensation on the principle of no
fault, as enunciated under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, thus, it was observed by this Court that even if there is no
loss of dependency, the quantification cannot be below that amount
[2019] 6 S.C.R. 941
 941
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
942
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
and to that extent the amount would form a part of the estate of
the deceased.[Para 8][946-C-E]
2. The focus for determination of such claim is the deceased
and what would be his contribution towards the dependents would
he to be alive, for the benefits of the dependents.  It is trite to
say, and in fact conceded by the learned counsel for the insurance
company, that in case the deceased is a married person, it is the
age of the deceased which is to be taken into account.  The
question is whether in case the deceased is a bachelor, a different
principle for calculation of the multiplier should be applied by
shifting the focus to the age of the claimants?  This Court is of
the view that the answer to this question should be in the negative.
[Para 9][946-F-G]
3. A reading of the judgment in Sube Singh & Anr. v. Shaym
Singh (Dead) & Ors. shows that where a three Judge Bench has
categorically taken the view that it is the age of the deceased and
not the age of the parents that would be the factor for the purposes
of taking the multiplier to be applied.  This judgment undoubtedly
relied upon the case of Munna Lal Jain & Anr. v. Vipin Kumar
Sharma & Ors. which is also a three Judge Bench judgment in
this behalf.  The relevant portion of the judgment has also been
extracted.  Once again the extracted portion in turn refers to the
judgment of a three Judge Bench in Reshma Kumari & Ors. v.
Madan Mohan & Anr.  The relevant portion of Reshma Kumari in
turn has referred to Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr. and given its imprimatur to the same.  The
loss of dependency is thus stated to be based on : (i) additions/
deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the
deductions to be made towards the personal living expenses of
the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference
to the age of the deceased.  It is the third aspect which is of
significance and Reshma Kumari  categorically states that it does
not want to revisit the law settled in Sarla Verma case in this
behalf. [Para 11][947-A-D]
Sube Singh & Anr. v. Shaym Singh (Dead) & Ors.
(2018) 3 SCC 18 : [2018] 1 SCR 636;
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
943
Munna Lal Jain & Anr. v. Vipin Kumar Sharma & Ors.
(2015) 6 SCC 347 :  [2015] 7 SCR 207 ; Reshma Kumari
& Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr.  (2013) 9 SCC 65 :
[2013] 2 SCR 706  – relied on.
Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 :

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.