SUBE SINGH AND ANR. versus SHYAM SINGH (DEAD) AND ORS.

Citation: [2018] 1 S.C.R. 636 · Decided: 09-02-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 2 · 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
636
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 1 S.C.R.
SUBE SINGH AND ANR.
v.
SHYAM SINGH (DEAD) AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7176 of  2015)
FEBRUARY 09, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: s.166 – Multiplier – Fatal accident
– Victim aged 23 years – High Court applied multiplier of 14 for
determining compensation amount in reference to the age of parents
of the deceased – Parents of the deceased seeking multiplier of 18
– Held:  In Sarla Verma case, it was held that the multiplier should
be chosen from the table with reference to the age of the deceased
and not the age of the dependents – In view of the said decision,
multiplier of 18 to be applied for paying compensation to the
appellants-parents.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:  The respondents are directed to pay compensation
by applying 18 multiplier, instead of 14 applied by the High Court.
Considering the amount of annual contribution to the deceased’s
family determined at Rs.37,800/- and applying multiplier 18, the
compensation would work out to Rs.6,80,400/- determined by
the High Court. [Para 5] [639-F-G]
Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others v. Delhi Transport
Corporation And Anr.  (2009) 6 SCC 121 : [2009] 5
SCR 1098; Munna Lal Jain and Anr. v. Vipin Kumar
Sharma and Ors. (2015) 6 SCC 347 : [2015] 7 SCR
207 – relied on.
Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi v. Ramkaran Ramchandra
Sharma and Anr. (2015) 2 SCC 180 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
(2015) 2 SCC 180
referred to
Para 1
[2009] 5 SCR 1098
relied on
Para 3
[2015] 7 SCR 207
relied on
Para 3
636
[2018] 1 S.C.R. 636
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
637
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7176
of 2015.
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.12.2014 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in F. A. O. No. 330 of 2012
(O&M).
Rakesh Kumar Yadav (For Dr. Kailash Chand), Advs. for the
Appellants.
Chander Shekhar Ashri, Adv. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A. M. KHANWILKAR, J. 1. The sole question to be answered
in this appeal is: whether the High Court was right in applying multiplier
14 for determining compensation amount in a motor accident claim case
in reference to the age of parents of the deceased whilst relying on the
decision of this Court in Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi Vs. Ramkaran
Ramchandra Sharma and Anr.1?
2. Briefly stated, in a motor accident which occurred on 22.09.2009,
Ajit Singh, who was at the relevant time 23 years of age died. His parents,
who were in the age group of 40 to 45 years, filed a petition claiming
compensation. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held that the
established income of the deceased was around Rs.4,200/- per month
and after  deduction of 50% as the deceased was unmarried, calculated
the same as Rs.2,100/- per month.  Thereafter, it applied multiplier 15,
taking the age of the “parents of the deceased” into consideration. This
was challenged by the appellants by way of an appeal before the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, being FAO No.330 of
2012 (O&M) which was partly allowed in relation to other heads of
compensation. As regards multiplier applied for determination of loss of
future income, the High Court held that multiplier 14 will be applicable.
For that, the High Court relied on the decision of this Court of (Two
Judge Bench) in Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi (supra). Resultantly, the
appellants have filed the present appeal, questioning the correctness of
the conclusion so reached by the High Court.
3. According to the appellants, the correct multiplier to be applied
in the facts of the present case is 18, as the deceased was only 23 years
of age on the date of accident. To buttress this submission, reliance is
 1 2015 (2) SCC 180
SUBE SINGH AND ANR. v. SHYAM SINGH (DEAD) AND ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
638
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 1 S.C.R.
placed on the decision in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation And Anr.2. Reliance is also placed on the recent
judgment of this Court (Three Judge Bench) in the case of Munna Lal
Jain and Anr. Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and Ors.3, which has restated
the legal position that multiplier should depend on the age of the deceased
and not on the age of the dependents.
4. On the basis of the finding recorded by the Tribunal and affirmed
by the High Court, it is evident that the deceased was 23 years of age on
the date of accident i.e. 22.09.2009. He was unmarried and his parents
who filed the petition for compens
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.