M. MANSOOR & ANR.versusUNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.

                    [2013] 10 S.C.R. 421


                   M. MANSOOR & ANR.                                A
                               v.
       UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.
             (Civil Appeal No. 8612 of 2013)
                     OCTOBER 03, 2013
                                                                    B
         [G.S. SINGHVI AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.]

     Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s.166 - Fatal accident - Claim
for compensation - By parents of deceased - Tribunal granted
compensation by deducting 113 towards personal and living           C
expenses of the deceased and by applying multiplier of 17 -
High Court reduced the compensation amount by using
multiplier of 12 - Held: In view of the facts that the deceased
was bachelor and the claimants were his parents, deduction
towards personal and living expenses should have been 50%           D
and not 113rd - In view of the age of the deceased at the time
of death i.e. 24 years, multiplier of 18 ought to have been
applied - Compensation amount determined by deducting
50% towards personal and living expenses and by applying
multiplier of 18 - In addition Rs. 1, 00, 0001- paid towards loss   E
of love and affection and Rs. 10, 000-1 on account of funeral
and ritual expenses.

     Appellants, the parents of the deceased {who lost his
life In motor accident), filed petition u/s.166 of Motors F
Vehicles Act, clalmlng compensation to the tune of
Rs.28,00,000/-. They pleaded that the accident was
caused due to rash and negligent driving; that the
deceased was 24 years old earning Rs.18, 100/- per
month. Tribunal accepting the case of the appellants,
determined the compensation at Rs.24,65,668/- after G
deducting 1/3rd towards personal and llvlng expenses of
the deceased and applying the multiplier of 17. On appeal
by the respondent-Insurance Company, High Court
                              421                                   H
    422      SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [2013) 10 S.C.R.

A reduced the compensation amount to Rs.15,14,6481- by
  applying multiplier of 12. Hence the present appeal.
          Allowing the appeal, the Court

       HELD: 1. The Tribunal as well as the High Court
B made a deduction of 113rd only, towards personal and
  living expenses of the deceased and the deceased being
  a bachelor and the claimants being parents, the deduction
  of 50% has to be made as personal and living expenses.
  [Para 14] [429-B-D]
c
       2. As the age of the deceased at the time of his death
  was 24 years, the multiplier of 18 ought to have been
  applied. The Tribunal taking into consideration the age of
  the deceased wrongly applied the multiplier of 17 and the
0 High Court committed a serious error by bringing it down
  to the multiplier of 12. [Para 16] [429-H; 430-A]
       Amrit Bhanu Shafi and Ors. vs. National Insurance
    Company Limited and Ors. (2012) 11 SCC 738 - relied on.

E      3. Appellants produced the Salary Certificate of the
  deceased, which shows that the deceased was earning
  Rs.18,100/- per month. The Tribunal has rightly taken into
  consideration the aforesaid income for computing the
  compensation. The annual income comes to Rs.
F 2,17,200/-. If 50% of the said income is deducted towards
  personal and living expenses of the deceased the
  contribution to the family will be Rs.1,08,600/-. At the time
  of the accident the deceased was a bachelor about 24
  years old hence applying the multiplier of 18, the amount
G will come to Rs.19,54,800/-. Besides this amount the
  claimants are entitled to get Rs.50,000/- each towards the
  loss of affection of the son i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- and
  Rs.10,000/- on account of funeral and ritual expenses.
  Therefore, the total amount comes to Rs.20,64,800/- and
H the claimants are entitled to get the said amount of
 M. MANSOOR & ANR. v. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE 423
               CO. LTD. & ANR.
 compensation instead of the amount awarded by the                 A
 Tribunal and the High Court. They would also be entitled
 to get interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date
 of the filing of the claim petition till realization. [Para 17]
 [430-A-E]
                                                                   B
     Sar/a Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6
 SCC 121: 2009 (5)SCR 1098 - relied on.

      U.P. SRTC vs. Trilok Chandra (1996) 4 SCC 362: 1996
 (2) Suppl. SCR 443 - referred to.
                                                                   c
      Nance vs. British Columbia Electric Railway Co. Ltd.
 (1951) 2 All ER 448(PC); Davies vs. Powell Duffryn
 Associated Collieries Ltd. No.2 (1942) 1 All ER 657 (HL) -
 referred to.
                      Case Law Reference:                          D

     2009 (5) SCR 1098                relied on      Para 13
      1996 (2) Suppl. SCR 443         referred to    Para 13
      (1951) 2 All ER 448 (PC)        referred to    Para 13       E
      (1942) 1 All ER 657 (HL)        referred to    Para 13
      c2012) 11 sec 738               relied on      Para 15
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.               F
 8612 of 2013.

      From the Judgment and Order dated 30.04.2010 of the
- High Court of Judicature at Madras in Civil Miscellaneous
  Appeal No. 676 of 2005.
                                                                   G
      P.B. Suresh, Udayaditya Banerjee for the Appellants.

      Zahid Ali for the Respondent.

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                   H
    424      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A         C. NAGAPPAN, J. 1. Leave granted.

       2. Feeling dissatisfied with the reduction of compensation
  determined by the Motor Claims Tribunal, Second Small
  Causes Court, Chennai in Motor Accident Claim
B No.M.A.C.T.O.P. No.4973 of 2001, the appellants have
  preferred this appeal.

        3. The deceased Amjath Khan Arabu, is the son of the
  appellants. The deceased was travelling as passenger in a
  Transport Corporation Bus bearing registration no.TN-01-N-
C 6587 to Kumbakkonam from Tambaram on the Grand Southern
  Trunk Road, while the bus was proceeding near the village
  Silavattam, a container lorry bearing registration no.TN-01-C-
  6248 coming rashly and negligently in the opposite direction
  dashed against the Corporation Bus, resulting in the
O instantaneous death of five persons including the son of the
  appellants. The parents of the deceased-Amjath Khan Arabu,
  filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motors Vehicle'
  Act (for short "the Act") for awarding of compensation to the
  tune of Rs.28,00,000/-. They pleaded that the accident was
E caused due to rash and negligent driving of the container lorry,
  owned by the Respondent No.1 and that, at the time of his death
  the age of the deceased was 24 years and he was a MBA
  Graduate and employed as Business Manager in Intel Comox
  Management India and was earning Rs.18,100/- per month.
F      4. Respondent No.1 did not appear and was set Ex-parte.
  Respondent No.2, insurer of the container lorry, filed a written
  statement stating that the accident was not caused due to the
  negligence on the part of the driver of the container lorry and
  also denied the claimant's assertion about the income of their
G son Amjath Khan Arabu.

         5. Two other claim petitions, arising out of the same
    accident, were clubbed with the claim petition of the appellants
    and the Tribunal framed the following issues :
H
M. MANSOOR & ANR. v. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE 425
      CO. LTD. & ANR. [C. NAGAPPAN, J.]
     "1.   As to who is the cause for the accident cited in         A
           these petitions?

     2.     If so, what should be compensation amount which
            are liable to be received in each of the petitions?"

     6. In support of the claim petitions the first appellant       B
examined himself as PW-1 and four other witnesses were also
examined. PW-2 and PW-4 were travelling in the bus and
witnessed the accident. According to PW-1 the first appellant,
their son Amjath Khan Arabu studied MBA and has been
working as the Business Manager in the Firm called Intel            C
Comox Management India and his salary was Rs.18,100/-.
Ex.A-1 to A-10 were marked as documents which included the
Post Mortem Certificate, MBA Degree Certificate, Appointment
Order for the Job done, Salary Certificate and copy of the Bank
Account. No evidence was let in by Respondent No.2.                 D

      7. After analyzing the evidence, the Tribunal decided Issue
No.1 in the affirmative and held that accident was caused due
to rash and negligent driving of container lorry owned by the
first respondent.
                                                                    E
      8. While dealing with the Issue No.2, the Tribunal accepted
the evidence produced to show the employment of the
deceased as Business Manager and his earning at Rs.18, 100/
- in the private company. It also determined that the deceased
was a bachelor aged about 24 years at the time of accident.         F
The Tribunal deducted 1/3rd of his monthly salary and
determined the loss of earnings to family at Rs.12,067/-. The
Tribunal then applied the multiplier 17 and declared that the
claimants are entitled to get compensation of Rs.24,65,668/-
with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim    G
petition.

     9. Respondent No. 2 the Insurance Company challenged
the award of the Tribunal by filing Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
No.676 of 2005 before the High Court of judicature at Madras.       H
..
         426       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 10 S.C.R.


     A        10. The High Court referred to the decisions of this Court
         including Sar/a Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009)
         6 sec 121 and by the impugned judgment dated 30.4.2010
         reduced the compensation to Rs.15, 14,648/- by applying
         multiplier of 12 and observed as follows :
     B
               .......... "We determine the Loss of monthly Income/
               Pecuniary Loss in respect of the deceased at Rs.15, 100/
               -p.m. as an Equitable one and fair sum. From and out of
               the sum of Rs.15, 100/- we deduct one third sum of
               Rs.5,033/- towards personal expenses of the deceased
     c         and the balance works out to Rs.10,067/- and this sum,
               we aptly take into account as Loss of Income/Pecuniary
               Loss per month in respect of the death of the deceased
               son of the Respondents/Claimants. Per year, it comes to
               Rs.1,20,804/- (Rs.10,067 x 12). Since the First
     D         Respondent/First Claimant's (father) age was 51 and the
               Second Respondent/Second Claimant's (mother) aged
               about 46 at the time of the death of the deceased son, we
               deem it fit and proper to adopt a just fair and reasonable
               multiplier 12 and accordingly, the Loss of Income works
     E         out to Rs.14,49,648/- (Rs.1,20,804 x 12). Towards loss of
               Love and Affection, we award a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the
               Respondents/ Claimants. Towards Funeral Expenses, we
               award a sum of Rs.5,000/-. Towards Loss of Estate, we
               grant a sum of Rs.10,000/-. Thus, we award a total
     F         compensation of Rs.15, 14,648/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs
               fourteen thousand six hundred and forty eight only) with
               interest at 9% p.a. from the date of accident till date of
               payment with pro costs payable by the Appellant/Second
               Respondent Insurance Company." ......... .
     G
             11. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
         appellants relied upon the judgment of this Court in Sar/a
         Verma case (supra) referred above and argued that the victim
         being aged 24 years the multiplier of 18 should have been
         applied but the High Court committed a serious error by
     H
M. MANSOOR & ANR. v. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE 427
      CO. LTD. & ANR. [C. NAGAPPAN, J.]
applying the multiplier of 12, which was against the law laid        A
down by this Court in the said decision. The learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1-lnsurance
Company relying upon the same decision in Sar/a Verma case
(supra} contended that deceased being a bachelor, deduction
of 50% towards personal and living expenses ought to have            B
been made and the Tribunal as well as the High Court
committed serious error by deducting one-third (1/3rd} only
which was against the law laid down by this Court in the said
decision. He also further contended that the deceased Amjath
Khan Arabu was an unmarried person aged about 24 years               c
and the High Court rightly applied the multiplier of 12 as per
the age of the claimants (i.e.} parents.

     12. We have considered the respective arguments and
perused the record. The questions which arise for consideration
are:                                                                 D

      "1.   What should be the deduction for the "personal and
            living expenses" of the deceased Amjath Khan
            Arabu to decide the question of the contribution to
            the parents?                                             E

      2.    What is the proper selection of Multiplier for
            deciding the claim?"

      13. The question relating to deduction for personal and
living expenses and selection of multiplier fell for consideration   F
before this Court in Sar/a Verma vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation (Supra} cited above and this Court referred to large
number of precedents including the judgments in U.P. SRTC
vs. Trilok Chandra (1996) 4 SCC 362, Nance -vs. British
Columbia Electric Railway Co. Ltd. (1951) 2 All ER 448 (PC},         G
Davies vs. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd. No.2
(1942) 1 All ER 657 (HL} and made an attempt to limit the
exercise of discretion by the Tribunals and the High Courts in
the matter of award of compensation by laying down straitjacket
formula under different headings in its judgment some of which       H
    428        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A   are enumerated below :

                "30. "I:hough in some cases the deduction to be
          made towards personal and living expenses is calculated
          on the basis of units indicated in U.P. SRTC vs. Trilok
          Chandra (1996) 4 SCC 362, the general practice is to
B
          apply standardized deductions. Having considered several
          subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that
          where the deceased was married the deduction towards
          personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be
          one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family
c         members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of
          dependent family members is 4 to 6 and one-fifth (1/5th)
          where the number of dependent family members exceeds
          six.

D                31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the
          claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different
          principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted
          as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed
          that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even
E         otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married
          in a short time, in which event the contribution to the
          parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further,
          subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to
          have his own income and will not be considered as a
          dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a
F
          dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary,
          brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants,
          because they will either be independent and earning, or
          married, or be dependant on the father.
G               32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents
          and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be
          a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal
          and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the
          contribution to the family. However, where the family of the
H         bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the
  M. MANSOOR & ANR. v. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE 429
        CO. LTD. & ANR. [C. NAGAPPAN, J.]
      deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother             A
      and large number of younger non-earning sisters or
      brothers, his personal and living expenses may be
      restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be
      taken as two-third."
                                                                       B
      14. Admittedly, both the parents namely the appellants
 herein have been held to be dependants to the deceased
 Amjath Khan Arabu and therefore, the Tribunal held that they
 have'the right to get the compensation. The Tribunal as well as
 the High Court made a deduction of 1/3rd only towards personal        C
 and living expenses of the deceased and as rightly contended
 by the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1, the deceased
 being a bachelor and the claimants being parents, the
 deduction of 50% has to be made as personal and living
 expenses as per the decision of this Court in Sarta Verma case
 (supra} extracted above. The first question is determined             D
 accordingly.

      15. The Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 17 and the High
 Court determined the multiplier as 12 on the basis of the age
 of the parents/claimants. This Court in the decision in Amrit         E
 Bhanu Shafi & Ors. vs. National Insurance Company Limited
 & Ors. (2012} 11 SCC 738 held as follows :

            "15. The selection of multiplier is based on the age
      of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of the
                                                                       F
      dependent. There may be a number of dependents of the
      deceased whose age may be different and, therefore, the
      age of the dependents has no nexus with the computation
      of compensation."

        16. In the decision in Sar/a Verma case (supra} this Court     G
- held that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in
  column (4) of the table of the said judgment which starts with
  an operative multiplier of 18. As the age of the deceased at
  the time of the death was 24 years, the multiplier of 18 ought
  to have been applied. The Tribunal taking into consideration the     H
    430      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A   age of the deceased wrongly applied the multiplier of 17 and
    the High Court committed a serious error by bringing it down
    to the multiplier of 12.

           17. Appellants produced the Salary Certificate of
    deceased Amjath Khan Arabu, which has been marked as
8
    Ex. P-8. It shows that the deceased was earning Rs.18, 100/-
    per month. The Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration the
    aforesaid income for computing the compensation. The annual
    income comes to Rs.2,17,200/-. If 50% of the said income is
    deducted towards personal and living expenses of the
C deceased the contribution to the family will be Rs.1,08,600/-.
    At the time of the accident the deceased Amjath Khan Arabu
    was a bachelor about 24 years old hence on the basis of the
    decision in Sar/a Verma case (supra) applying the multiplier
    of 18, the amount will come to Rs.19,54,800/-. Besides this
D amount the claimants are entitled to get Rs.50,000/- each
   towards the loss of affection of the son i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- and
    Rs.10,000/- on account of funeral and ritual expenses .
  . Ttlerefore, the total amount comes to Rs.20,64,800/- and the
    claimants are entitled to get the said amount of compensation
E instead of the amount awarded by the Tribunal and the High
    Court. They would also be entitled to get interest at the rate of
    6% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition
    till realization.

F      18. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned
  judgment dated 30-4-2010 passed by the High Court of Madras
  in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.676 of 2005 is set aside and
  the award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent
  above. The amount which has already been received by
G appellants/claimants shall be adjusted and rest of the amount
  be paid at an early date.

          No order as to costs.

    K.K.T.                                         Appeal allowed.
H