A.M. Khanwilkar, J.— The sole question to be answered in this appeal is: whether the High Court 2014 SCC OnLine P&H 23020 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 v. Ramkaran Ramchandra Sharma (2015) 2 SCC 180?
2. Briefly stated, in a motor accident which occurred on 22-9-2009, 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 4200 per month and after deduction of 50%, as the deceased was unmarried, calculated the same as Rs 2100 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 2014 SCC OnLine P&H 23020 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 (2015) 2 SCC 180. 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 placed on the decision in Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121. Reliance is also placed on the recent judgment of this Court (three-Judge Bench) in Munna Lal Jain v. Vipin Kumar Sharma (2015) 6 SCC 347, which has restated the legal position that multiplier should depend on the age of the deceased and not on the age of the dependants.
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. 22-9-2009. He was unmarried and his parents who filed the petition for compensation were in the age group of 40 to 45 years. The High Court, relying on the decision in Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi (2015) 2 SCC 180 held that multiplier 14 will be applicable in the present case, keeping in mind the age of the parents of the deceased. The legal position, however, is no more res integra. In Munna Lal Jain (2015) 6 SCC 347 decided by a three-Judge Bench of this Court, it is held that multiplier should depend on the age of the deceased and not on the age of the dependants. We may usefully refer to the exposition in paras 11 and 12 of the reported decision, which read thus: (Munna Lal Jain case (2015) 6 SCC 347)
“11. The remaining question is only on multiplier. The High Court 2012 SCC OnLine Del 4540 following Santosh Devi (2012) 6 SCC 421 has taken 13 as the multiplier. Whether the multiplier should depend on the age of the dependants or that of the deceased, has been hanging fire for some time; but that has been given a quietus by another three-Judge Bench decision in Reshma Kumari (2013) 9 SCC 65. It was held that the multiplier is to be used with reference to the age of the deceased. One reason appears to be that there is certainty with regard to the age of the deceased but as far as that of dependants is concerned, there will always be room for dispute as to whether the age of the eldest or youngest or even the average, etc., is to be taken. To quote: (Reshma Kumari case (2013) 9 SCC 65)
‘36. In Sarla Verma (2009) 6 SCC 121, this Court has endeavoured to simplify the otherwise complex exercise of assessment of loss of dependency and determination of compensation in a claim made under Section 166. It has been rightly stated in Sarla Verma (2009) 6 SCC 121 that the claimants in case of death claim for the purposes of compensation must establish (a) age of the deceased (b) income of the deceased; and (c) the number of dependants. To arrive at the loss of dependency, the Tribunal must consider (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. We do not think it is necessary for us to revisit the law on the point as we are in full agreement with the view in Sarla Verma (2009) 6 SCC 121.’
12. In Sarla Verma (2009) 6 SCC 121 at para 19 a two-Judge Bench dealt with this aspect in Step 2. To quote:
‘19. … Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier)
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. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased.’”
5. Considering the aforementioned principle expounded in Sarla Verma (2009) 6 SCC 121, which has been affirmed by the Constitution Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680, AIR 2017 SC 5157, the appellants are justified in insisting for applying multiplier 18.
6. A priori, we direct the respondents to pay compensation by applying 18 multiplier, instead of 14 applied by the High Court. In other words, 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 (Rupees six lakhs eighty thousand four hundred only), instead of Rs 5,29,200 as determined by the High Court. The amount of compensation under other heads determined by the High Court in para 5 of the impugned judgment would remain undisturbed. The rate of interest is, however, modified to 9% (nine per cent) per annum instead of 6% per annum granted by the Tribunal and the High Court. The order passed by the High Court stands modified to the aforementioned extent.
7. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in the aforementioned terms with no order as to costs.