Haresh Shantilal Avlani vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 2024 INSC 251 CIVIL APPEAL NO.4029-4030 OF 2024 (@ PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CIVIL) NO. 13093 OF 2017)

HARESH SHANTILAL AVLANI & ANR. ..... APPELLANTS

VERSUS

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... RESPONDENT

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4031 OF 2024 (@ PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CIVIL) NO. 13072 OF 2017)

ARUN BHILA PATIL & ORS. ..... APPELLANTS

VERSUS

GAUTAM MOHAN SINHA & ANR. ..... RESPONDENT

ORDER

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 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Bombay High Court, whereby the appeal filed by the respondent-Insurance KAVITA PAHUJA Date: 2024.03.23 13:57:32 IST Reason:

1

Company challenging its liability to pay compensation was partly allowed and the

compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai 1, 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’

2 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 Others 2,

Munna Lal Jain and Another v. Vipin Kumar Sharma and Others 3 and Reshma

Kumari and Others v. Madan Mohan and Another 4, 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 Another 5. The Constitution Bench in

the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Other 6 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

3 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

Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mandala Yadagari Goud

and Others7 has reiterated the same position as observed in the cases cited

above. We are, therefore, of the opinion that it is the age of the deceased which

ought to be taken into consideration and not the age of the dependents for arriving

at the multiplier and the High Court has erred in returning findings to the effect that

the age of dependents of the deceased ought to be the relevant consideration for

arriving at the choice of the multiplier.

6. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 19 th October, 2016, in Civil Appeal @

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.13093 of 2017, in respect of FAO

No. 756 of 2016 is quashed and set aside and the judgement dated 10 th July,

2015, passed by the learned MACT fixing the multiplier of 18 in the instant case is

restored. The respondent–Insurance Company is directed to pay the balance

amount along with up-to-date interest after adjusting the amounts already paid to

the appellants. The said amount shall be deposited with the MACT within six

weeks.

7. Similarly, the impugned judgment dated 10 th January, 2017 in Civil Appeal @

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.13072 of 2017 in respect of First

Appeal No. 50 of 2016 is modified to the extent that the multiplier shall be applied

as assessed by the MACT as 17. The MACT shall recalculate the amount payable 7 (2019) 5 SCC 554

4 by the respondent no.2-Insurance Company to the appellants by replacing the

multiplier from 13 to 17. After adjusting the amount already paid by the

respondents the balance amount shall be deposited by the respondent no.2-

Insurance Company within six weeks.

8. The appeals are allowed and disposed of on the above terms.

.......................……………….......J. [ HIMA KOHLI ]

.......................……………….......J. [ AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ] NEW DELHI MARCH 12, 2024 PS

5 ITEM NO.16 COURT NO.11 SECTION IX

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 13093/2017

(Arising out of impugned judgment and order dated 19-10-2016 in FAN No. 756/2016 and 25-10-2016 in FAN No. 756/2016 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Bombay)

HARESH SHANTILAL AVLANI & ANR. PETITIONERS

VERSUS

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. RESPONDENT

WITH

SLP(C) No. 13072/2017 (IX)

Date : 12-03-2024 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Shantanu M. Adkar, Adv.

Mr. Pravin Satale, Adv.

Mr. Rishabh Jain, Adv.

Mr. Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, AOR Mr. S K Sarkar, Adv.

Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, Adv.

Ms. Apurva, Adv.

Mr. Adarsh Kumar Pandey, Adv.

Mr. Vignesh Singh, Adv.

Mr. Dipesh Singhal, Adv.

M/S. S.M. Jadhav And Company, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Anshum Jain, Adv.

Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR

Mr. Ranjan Kumar Pandey, AOR Mr. K.K. Bhat, Adv.

6 UPON hearing the counsel, the Court made the following O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. The appeals are allowed and disposed of in terms of the signed

reportable order, which is placed on the file.

(POOJA SHARMA) (NAND KISHOR) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)

7