LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
⚖️ Ask the AI about your situation:🚗 Car Accident💼 Work / Job🏠 Housing / Eviction👪 Family / Divorce📋 Contract Dispute💰 Money Owed

SMT. SUNITA TOKAS & ANR. versus NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.

Citation: [2019] 10 S.C.R. 616 · Decided: 16-08-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: INDU MALHOTRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
616
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10 S.C.R.
SMT. SUNITA TOKAS & ANR.
v.
NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 6339 of 2019)
AUGUST 16, 2019
[INDU MALHOTRA AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: s.166 – Multiplier in case of a
bachelor – Appellants are parents of the victim-deceased – The case
of the appellants was that on the fateful day, victim-deceased was
travelling as a pillion rider of a two-wheeler – The two-wheeler
dashed against stationary truck standing in the middle of the road
– Both the driver and the pillion rider died on the spot – Victim-
deceased was 21 years old at the time of accident – MACT assessed
notional income of the deceased at Rs.16246 p.m. and a multiplier
of 15 based on the age of mother of the deceased and accordingly
determined compensation – High Court reduced compensation by
assessing notional income of the deceased at Rs.7500 p.m. – Appeal
by parents of the deceased for enhancement of compensation –
Held: Multiplier is to be applied on the basis of the age of the
deceased, and not on the basis of the age of the dependants – In
the instant case, since the deceased was 21 years old, the Multiplier
would be 18 as per the table set out in the Sarla Verma case – Further,
High Court erred in reducing the notional income of the deceased
from Rs. 16,246/- as awarded by the MACT to Rs. 7,500/- – The
deceased was a trained swimmer who had won several State-level
competitions and certainly had the potential to earn a living by
utilizing his skills – In such circumstances, notional monthly income
of the deceased fixed at Rs. 12,000/- – Further, addition of Future
Prospects made at 40% of the notional income of the deceased, as
per the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi – The
amounts awarded by the High Court under the heads of loss of love
and affection, loss of estate, funeral expenses, and the Interest
awarded by the MACT, are however, maintained.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. There are a catena of judgments rendered by
this Court, wherein it has been held that the Multiplier has to be
   [2019] 10 S.C.R. 616
616
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
617
applied on the basis on the age of the deceased, and not on the
basis of the age of the dependants. [Para 4] [621-D]
Munna Lal Jain & Ors. v. Vipin Kumar Sharma & Ors.
(2015) 6 SCC 347 : [2015] 7 SCR 207 ; National
Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.
(2017) 16 SCC 680 ;
Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mandala Yadagari Goud & Ors.
(2019) 5 SCC 554 – followed.
Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation &
Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 : [2009] 5 SCR 1098 ; New
India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Pathak & Ors. (2007)
10 SCC 1 : [2007] 8 SCR 237 ; Reshma Kumari & Ors.
v. Madan Mohan & Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 65 : [2013] 2
SCR 706 ; Amrit Bhanu Shali & Ors. v. National
Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., (2012) 11 SCC 738 : [2012]
5 SCR 207 ; Sube Singh & Ors. v. Shyam Singh
(dead) & Ors. (2018) 3 SCC 18 : [2018] 1 SCR 636
– relied on.
 2.   In the instant case, since the deceased was 21 years
old, the Multiplier of 18 was applicable as per the table set out in
the Sarla Verma case. The deceased was a trained swimmer who
had won several State-level competitions. His mother runs a
Swimming/Gym Centre at Air Force Station (Central School),
Gurgaon. Therefore, the deceased certainly had the potential to
earn a living by utilizing his skills. In such circumstances, it is
appropriate to fix the notional income of the deceased @Rs.
12,000/- p.m.  The Courts below failed to grant Future Prospects
@40% of the notional income of the deceased, as per the
judgment of the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi.  The amounts
awarded by the High Court under the heads of loss of love and
affection, loss of estate, funeral expenses, and the Interest
awarded by the MACT, are however, maintained. [Paras 4.8- 4.11]
[624-E-H; 625-A-B]
Case Law Refcrence
[2009] 5 SCR 1098
relied on
Para 3.1
[2007] 8 SCR 237
relied on
Para 3.3
SMT. SUNITA TOKAS v. NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
618
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10 S.C.R.
[2013] 2 SCR 706
relied on
Para 4.2
[2012] 5 SCR 207
followed
Para 4.3
[2015] 7 SCR 207
followed
Para 4.4
[2018] 1 SCR 636
relied on
Para 4.5
(2017) 16 SCC 680
followed
Para 4.6
(2019) 5 SCC 554
followed
Para 4.7
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6339
of 2019.
From the impugned Judgment and Order dated 01.08.2017 of the
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in MACA No.323 of 2017.

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