MUNNALAL JAIN AND ANOTHERversusVIPIN KUMAR SHARMAANO OTHERS

                     [2015] 7 S.C.R. 207


             MUNNALALJAINANDANOTHER
                                   .   ..                        A
                              v.
          VIPIN KUMAR SHARMAANO OTHERS
               (Civil Appeal No. 4497 of 2015)
                                                                 B
                       MAY 15, 2015
         [ANIL R. DAVE, MADAN B. LOKUR AND
                  KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.]
        Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: s. 166-Assessment of loss c. _
of dependency - Determination of just compensation - 30
year old self-employed bachelor died in motor accident -
Deceased earning Rs. 120001- per month -Ascertaining the
multiplier, addition towards futufe prospects and deduction
on account of personal and living expenses - Held: D
Deduction for personal and living expenses in case of a
bachelor would ordinarily be 50%'!:. On facts, no exceptional
circumstances or compelling reasons for deviation therefrom
- As far as future prospects are concerned, in case of self-
employed persons below 40 years, there must be addition of E
50% to the actual income while computing future prospects
- In the instant case, deceased being of the age of 30 y~ars,
50% is the required addition to his actual income while .
computing future prospects -·As far as multiplier is
concerned, that is to be chosen with reference to age of the F
deceased - On facts, deceased being aged between 26 to
30 years, multiplier applicable would be 17 - Accordingly,
appellants-claimants (parents of the deceased) entitled to
compensation of Rs. 18.36 lakhs towards loss of dependency G

      Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Compensation -
Computation of - Held: Compensation would basically
depend on the evidence available in a case -Formulas
shown by the courts are only guidelines- For this very reason,
                                                                 H
                            207
208        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 7 S.C.R.


A the Courts lodge caveat stating "ordinarily", "normally",
      "exceptional circumstances", etc., while suggesting the
      formula.

        Reshma Kumari and others v. Madan Mohan and
B       another2013 (2) SCR 706: (2013) 9 SCC 65; Rajesh
        and others v. Rajbir Singh and others 2013 (5)
        SCR 961: (2013) 9 SCC 54 and Sar/a Verma (Smt.)
        and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another
        2009 (5) SCR 1098: (2009) 6 SCC 121 - relied on.
c
        Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Limited
        2012 (3) SCR 1178: (2012) 6 SCC 421 - referred to
                                "
                        Case Law Reference
D           2012 (3) SCR 1178           referred to   Para 6
            2009 (5) SCR 1098           relied on.    Para 8
            2013 (2) SCR 706            relied on.    Para 9
            2013 (5) SCR 961            relied on.    Para 11
E
            CIVIL.APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
      4497 of 2015.

        From the Judgment and Order dated 31.08.2012 of the
F High Court of Delhi in MAC. APP. 68712011.

            Anuj Jain (For Yash Pal Dhingra) for the Appellants.

            Avinash Kr. Lakhanpal, Abhishek Kumar, Viresh B.
      Saharya for the Respondents.
G
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

            KURIAN, J.: 1. Leave granted.

     2. The never ending dispute on computation of
H compensation under the MotorVehiclesAct, 1988 (hereinafter
       MUNNALALJAINANDANOTHER v. VIPIN KUMAR                         209
           SHARMAAND OTHERS [KURIAN, J.]

referred to as 'the Act'), is the subject matter of this appeal as    A
well.

        3. In the absence of any statutory and a straight jacket
formula, there are bound to be grey areas despite several
attempts made by this Court to lay down the guidelines. B
Compensation would basically depend on the evidence
available in a case and the formulas shown by the courts are
only guidelines for the computation of the compensation. That
precisely is the reason the courts lodge a caveat stating
"ordinarily", "normally", "exceptional circumstances", etc., while C
suggesting the formula.

       4. In the case before us, the appellants are the claimants
before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karkardooma,
Delhi in M.A.C.T. No. 736/2008. They are the parents of late D
Satendra Kumar Jain, aged 30 years, who died in a motor
accident on 12.07.2008. He was self-employed as Pandit. He
was a bachelor. Hence, the claim by the parents.

       5. The appellants claimed an amount of Rs.95,50,000.00.        E
The Claims Tribunal awarded a total compensation of
Rs.6,59,000.00 including loss of dependency to the tune of
Rs.6,24,000.00 with interest@7.5 per cent from the date of
institution of the petition. Dissatisfied, appellants approached
the High Court of Delhi in MAC APP. 687 /2011 leading to the          F
impugned judgment. The High Court enhanced the
compensation and fixed it at Rs.12,61,800.00 with interest as
ordered by the Claims Tribunal.

       6. The High Court fixed the monthly income to G
Rs.12,000.00 and added 30% towards future prospects relying
on Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Limited 1.
50 per cent was deducted towards personal expenditure and
a multiplier of 13 was applied. Still not satisfied, the claimants
1
    (2012)   s sec 421                                               H
210             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    (2015] 7 S.C.R.


A are before this Court.

       7. On 08.02.20·13, this Court issued notice ... "confined
  to the issues on application of correct multiplier and reduction
  of the amount". In other words, the Court intended to consider
B the appeal limited to the question of application of multiplier
  and deduction on account of personal and living expenses.

             8. On the issue of deduction towards personal and living
      expenses in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi
c     Transport Corporation and another2, at paragraph-31, it
      was held that:

            "31 . ... 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.
D
            Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting
            married in a short time;7n 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
E           likely to have his own income and will not be considered
            as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered.
            as a 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
F           earning, or married, or be dependent on the father."

       9. The deduction or:,dinarily in the case of a bachelor at
  50 % was approved recently by a three-Judge Bench decision
  in Reshma Kumari and others v. Madan Mohan and
G another3, holding that the standard fixed in Sarla Verma
  (supra) on the aspect of deduction for personal and living
  expenses ... "must ordinarily be followed unless a case for
  departure in the circumstances noted in the preceding
  paragraph is made out". Preceding paragraph-41 reads as
H     2
          (2009) s sec 121
      3
          (2013) g sec ss
     MUNNALALJAINANDANOTHER v. VIPIN KUMAR                       211
         SHARMAAND OTHERS [KURIAN, J.]

follows:                                                          A

    "41. The above does provide guidance for the
   appropriate deduction for personal and living expenses.
   One must bear in mind that the proportion of a man's net
   earnings that he saves or spends exclusively for the           B
   maintenance of others does not form part of his living
   expenses but what he spends exclusively on himself
   does. The percentage of deduction on account of
   personal and living expenses may vary with reference to
   the number of .dependent memb.ers in the family and the        C
   personal living expenses of the deceased need not
   exactly correspond to the number of dependants."

      10. In the case before us, there are no such exceptional
circumstances or compelling reason~ for deviation on the basis    o
of evidence and therefore deduction of 50% towards the
                                    JO


personal and living expenses is nc:it to be disturbed.

     11. As far as future prospects are concerned, in Rajesh
and others v. Rajbir Singh and others 4 , a three-Judge E
Bench of this Court held that in case of self-employed persons
also, if the deceased victim is below 40 years, there must be
addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while
computing future prospects. To q~ote:
                                                                  F
   "8. Since, the Court in Santosh Devi case actually
   intended to follow the principle in the case of salaried
   persons as laid down in Sar/a Verma case and to make
   it applicable also to the self-employed and persons on
   fixed wages, it is clarified thatthe~ncrease in the case of   G
   those groups is not 30% always; it will also have a
   reference to the age. In other words, in the case of self-
   employed or persons with fixed wages, in case, the
   deceased victim was below 40 years, there must be an
• (2013) s sec 54                                                H
212        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 7 S.C.R.

A       addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased
        while computing future prospects. Needless to say that
        the actual income should be income after paying the tax,
        if any. Addition should be 30% in case the deceased
        was in the age group of 40 to 50 years."
B
           The deceased being of the age of 30 years, 50% is the
      required addition.

         12. The remaining question is only on multiplier. The High
c Court following Santosh Devi (supra), has taken 13 as the
  multiplier. Whether the multiplier shouid depend on the age of
  the dependants or that of the deceased, has been hanging
  fire for sometime; but that has been given a quietus by another
  three-Judge Bench decision in Reshma Kumari (supra). It
o 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
E the average, etc., is to be taken. To quote:

        "36. In Sar/a Verma, this Court has endeavoured to
        simplify the otherwise complex exercise of assessment
        of loss of dependency and determination of
F       compensation in a claim made under Section 166. It has
        been rightly stated in Sar/a Verma 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
G       arrive at the loss of dependency, the Tribunal must
        consider (1) additions/deductions to be made for arriving
        at the income; (it) 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
H       the deceased. We do not think it is necessary for us to
     MUNNALALJAINANDANOTHER v. VIPIN KUMAR                                 213
         SHARMAAND OTHERS [KURIAN, J.]

     revisit the law on the point as we are in full agreement               A
     with the view in Sar/a Verma."

    13. In Sarla Verma (supra), atparagraph-19, a two-Judge
Bench dealt with this aspect in Step 2. To quole:
                                                                            B
     "19. xxx      )()()(    )()()(
     Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier)

   Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of
  active career, the appropriate multiplier should be                       C
  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             D
  should be chosen from the said table with reference to
  the age of the deceased."

      14. The multiplier, in the case of the age of the deceased
between 26 to 30 years is 17. There is no dispute or grievance E
on fixation of monthly income as Rs.12,000.00 by the High
Court.

      15. Thus, the appellants are entitled to compensation of
Rs.18,36,000.00 towards loss of dependency, which is                       F
calculated as follows -
                       CAL.Cll.AllON                       TOTAL ON RS.I
 q       Rs.12,000'- (Ma1ttiy lrrorre) ad:l [9J% d   =     18,000.00
         Rs. 12,000'-{FLture Prosi:ects))                                  G
 q       9J%d [Rs.18,000/-(!Ei.Jctiais)]               =   9,000.00
 q       (Rs.9,000/-] m.ttiply cy [12(Armal lrrorre)] =    1,08,000.00

 d       [Rs.1,00,000'-] rrultiply cy [17(MJltiplier)] =   18,36,000.00

                                                                           H
214         SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2015] 7 S.C.R.


A There shall be no change on the amounts awarded by the High
  Court on other heads or on rate of interest.

          16. The appeal is allowed as above. There shall be no
      order as to costs.
 B
      Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                         Appeal allowed.




                 ,IJ


                •r'