UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusSATINDER KAUR @ SATWINDER KAUR & ORS.

                         [2020] 5 S.C.R. 669                              669


             UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.                              A
                                  v.
       SATINDER KAUR @ SATWINDER KAUR & ORS.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 2705 of 2020)
                           JUNE 30, 2020                                  B
        [S. ABDUL NAZEER, INDU MALHOTRA AND
                 ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
       Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Motor vehicle accident – Death –
Compensation – Computation of – Person living in Qatar since 1984
                                                                          C
was visiting India in Nov. 1998 when he met with an accident while
riding a scooter, with his wife as pillion rider, with a Maruti car
coming from opposite direction – Tribunal calculated the
compensation at Rs.1,90,000 with interest @ 9% p.a. – High Court
computed the total compensation at Rs.96,78,000 with interest @
7.5% p.a. – Held: In the absence of any other evidence produced           D
by the Claimants, the income of the deceased computed by taking
his base salary at 750 Qatari Riyal p.m. in 1984 as a skilled labourer,
as reflected in his Employment Contract Form – By taking an
increment of 10% p.a from 1984 till 1998, the notional income of
the deceased is fixed at 2590 Qatari Riyal p.m, rounded off to 2600
                                                                          E
Qatari Riyal p.m. – Exchange rate prevailing in 1998- 1 Qatari
Riyal was equivalent to 12.41 INR – Income of the deceased-
2600 x 12.41= Rs. 32,266 p.m. i.e. Rs. 3,87,192 p.a. – High Court
rightly deducted 50% of his income towards personal and living
expenses – Further, as per the judgment of Constitution Bench in
Pranay Sethi, future prospects @ 30% are to be awarded – Thus,            F
multiplicand for computing the compensation is Rs. 3,87,192 - 50%
+ 30% = Rs.2,51,675 – Deceased was 40 years of age at the time
of his death, accordingly, the multiplier of 15 would be the
appropriate multiplier as per Sarla Verma case. Loss of dependency
is Rs.2,51,675 x 15= Rs.37,75,125 – Amounts awarded under
                                                                          G
conventional heads also – Deduction of 50% by MACT and the
High Court towards contributory negligence is affirmed – Total
compensation of Rs.19,82,563/- awarded – Dependants have been
pursuing legal proceedings since the past 22 years – Interest @12%
p.a. be paid on total compensatio n from the date of filing the claim
petition, till realization – Claimant No.1, widow of the deceased         H
                                 669
670            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2020] 5 S.C.R.


A     suffered permanent disability of 25% in this accident – Single-
      handedly raised her three minor children, and eked out her livelihood
      through agricultural activity – 50% of the total compensation
      (inclusive of interest) be given to her and the balance 50% be divided
      equally between the three children.
B           Disposing of the appeals, the Court
             HELD 1.1 The income of the deceased in 1984 as per his
      Employment Contract Form dated 21.08.1984, was 750 Qatari
      Riyal p.m. This document was duly certified by the Indian Embassy
      at Doha. In the absence of any other evidence being produced by
C     the Claimants, the income of the deceased would be required to
      be computed by taking his base salary at 750 Qatari Riyal p.m. in
      1984 as a skilled labourer, as reflected in his Employment
      Contract Form. A perusal of the passport entries of the deceased
      reveal that he had continued to remain in employment for a period
      of over 14 years in Qatar till he passed away in 1998. He was
D
      evidently doing fairly well, since there are numerous entries of
      foreign travel in his passport during the 14 years of his stay in
      Doha. By taking an increment of 10% per annum from 1984 till
      1998, the notional income of the deceased could be fixed at 2590
      Qatari Riyal p.m., which can be rounded off to 2600 Qatari Riyal
E     p.m. As per the exchange rate prevailing in 1998, 1 Qatari Riyal
      was equivalent to 12.41 INR. Accordingly, the income of the
      deceased would work out to 2600 x 12.41 = Rs. 32,266 p.m. i.e.
      Rs. 3,87,192 p.a. Even though in Sarla Verma, it was held that the
      deduction towards personal and living expenses should be 1/4th,
      if the number of dependant family members is four, in the present
F     case, 50% of the income of the deceased would be required to
      be deducted, since he was living in a foreign country. The
      deceased had to maintain an establishment there, and incur
      expenditure for the same in commensurate with the high cost of
      living in a foreign country. Therefore, the High Court rightly
G     deducted 50% of his income towards personal and living
      expenses. [Paras 9.1, 9.2][688-H; 689-A; 690-D-H; 691-A-B]
            Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation &
            Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 : [2009] 5 SCR 1098 – relied
            on.
H
                                                                        671


      1.2 In the present case, the courts below failed to award         A
any amount towards future prospects. The deceased was just over
40 years of age at the time of his death. As per the judgment of
the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi, future prospects @30%
are to be awarded for computing the compensation payable to
the Claimants. The multiplicand for computing the compensation
                                                                        B
would therefore, work out to Rs. 3,87,192 – 50% + 30% =
Rs. 2,51,675. The deceased Satpal Singh was 40 years of age at
the time of his death. Accordingly, the multiplier of 15 would be
the appropriate multiplier as per the table set out in Sarla Verma.
Multiplying the multiplicand of Rs. 2,51,675 by the multiplier of
15, the loss of dependency payable to the Claimants would work          C
out to Rs. 37,75,125. Insofar as the conventional heads are
concerned, the deceased Satpal Singh left behind a widow and
three children as his dependants. On the basis of the judgments
in Pranay Sethi and Magma General, the following amounts are
awarded under the conventional heads :-
                                                                        D
      i) Loss of Estate: Rs. 15,000
      ii) Loss of Consortium:
         a) Spousal Consortium: Rs. 40,000
         b) Parental Consortium: 40,000 x 3 = Rs. 1,20,000              E
      iii) Funeral Expenses : Rs. 15,000
      The deduction of 50% made by the MACT and the High
Court towards contributory negligence is affirmed. [Paras 9.3 –
9.8][691-C-H; 692-A]
                                                                        F
      National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.
      (2017) 16 SCC 680 : [2017] 13 SCR 100 – followed.
      Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram & Ors.
      (2018) 18 SCC 130 – relied on.
      1.3 Claimants are awarded compensation of Rs. 19,82,563.          G
The deceased Satpal Singh had died on 18.11.1998. His
dependants have been pursuing legal proceedings for grant of
compensation since the past 22 years. As a consequence, Interest
@12% p.a. be paid on the total compensation awarded, from the
date of filing the claim petition, till realization. The Claimant No.
                                                                        H
672           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2020] 5 S.C.R.


A     1 i.e. widow of the deceased has suffered permanent disability of
      25% in this accident. She has single-handedly raised her three
      minor children, and eked out her livelihood through agricultural
      activity. 50% of the total compensation (inclusive of interest) be
      given to the Claimant No. 1 i.e. widow of the deceased, and the
      balance 50% be divided equally between the three children.
B
      [Paras 10, 13 and 14][692-A; 693-A-B]
            Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr. (2013)
            9 SCC 65; Munna Lal Jain & Ors. v. Vipin Kumar
            Sharma & Ors. (2015) 6 SCC 347 : [2015] 7 SCR 207;
            Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mandala
C           Yadagari Goud & Ors. (2019) 5 SCC 554 : [2019] 6
            SCR 941 – relied on.
            General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C., Trivandrum v.
            Susamma Thomas & Ors. (1994) 2 SCC 176;
            U.P.S.R.T.C. & Ors. v. Trilok Chandra & Ors. (1996) 4
D           SCC 362 : [1996] 2 Suppl. SCR 443; New India
            Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie & Ors. (2005) 10 SCC
            720 : [2005] 2 SCR 1173; Sube Singh & Ors. v. Shyam
            Singh (dead) & Ors. (2018) 3 SCC 18 : [2018] 1 SCR
            636; Sunita Tokas and Ors. v. New India Insurance Co.
E           Ltd. and Ors. 2019 (11) SCALE 24 – referred to.
                            Case Law Reference
      [2009] 5 SCR 1098              relied on           Para 8
      (2013) 9 SCC 65                relied on           Para 8
F     [2017] 13 SCR 100              followed            Para 8
      (1994) 2 SCC 176               referred to         Para 8
      [1996] 2 Suppl. SCR 443        referred to         Para 8
      [2005] 2 SCR 1173              referred to         Para 8
G     [2015] 7 SCR 207               relied on           Para 8
      [2018] 1 SCR 636               referred to         Para 8
      [2019] 6 SCR 941               relied on           Para 8
      (2018) 18 SCC 130              relied on           Para 8
H
                                                                            673


      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2705                  A
of 2020.
     From the Judgment and Order dated 10.03.2014 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No. 2294 of 2001.
      With
                                                                            B
      Civil Appeal No. 2706 of 2020.
      Ravi Bakshi, Yash Pal Dhingra, Gagan Gupta, Ananth Mishra,
Advs. for the appearing parties.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                            C
      INDU MALHOTRA, J.
      Leave granted.
       1. The deceased – Satpal Singh was residing in Doha, Qatar since
1984. The Employment Contract Form of the deceased dated 21.08.1984
revealed that he was engaged as a labourer initially for a period of one    D
year on a salary of 750 Qatari Riyal p.m., and continued to live in Qatar
where he was employed, till he passed away in a motor vehicle accident
in India in 1998.
      2. Satpal Singh was visiting India in November, 1998. On
18.11.1998, he was riding a scooter, with his wife as the pillion rider,    E
when he met with an accident with a Maruti car bearing No. CH-01-M-
6284 coming from the opposite direction.
      FIR No. 204 dated 18.11.1998 was lodged u/S. 304A, 279, 337,
427 IPC at P.S. Sadar, Rajpura against the driver and owner of the
offending car.                                                              F
       The FIR was lodged on the statement of Satinder Kaur – widow
of the deceased, wherein she had stated that the accident had occurred
due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Maruti car. It
was further stated that the accident took place while her husband was
over-taking a tractor-trolley, when the Maruti car was coming at a high     G
speed from the opposite side. This led to the accident, and caused the
death of Satpal Singh on the spot.
      The Claimant No. 1 i.e. wife of the deceased was also seriously
injured. Her right leg and jaw were fractured. The Claimant No. 1
remained in hospital for over a month. A rod was inserted in her leg, and
                                                                            H
674            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2020] 5 S.C.R.


A     remained in plaster for about 7 to 8 months. The accident led to 25%
      permanent disability, which is borne out from the Disability Certificate
      issued by the Civil Surgeon, Patiala.
            3. Claim Petition bearing M.A.C. Application No. 152 was filed
      before the MACT, Patiala (Punjab) on 24.12.1998 u/S. 166 of the Motor
B     Vehicles Act, 1988 by the widow of the deceased, on behalf of herself
      and her 3 minor children for compensation on the death of her husband.
      The Claimants prayed for compensation of Rs. 50 lacs, alongwith Interest
      @18% p.a. to be paid jointly and severally by the Insurance Company,
      and the driver and owner of the Maruti car.
C           3.1.   A copy of the FIR was placed before the MACT, as also
                   the Post Mortem Report which recorded the serious head
                   injuries caused by the road accident on the deceased.
            3.2.   The Claimants filed a photocopy of the Employment Contract
                   Form dated 10.07.1984 certified by the Indian Embassy at
D                  Doha, which records the engagement of the deceased as a
                   labourer by the firm Ali Al Fayyad Trading Contracting Est.,
                   Doha on a salary of 750 Qatari Riyal p.m., when he first
                   shifted to Qatar.
            3.3.   The Claimants also placed on record a letter dated
E                  27.06.1997 purported to have been issued by his employer
                   – the High Speed Group to the Counsellor, New Zealand
                   Consulate for issuance of a visa. It was stated that the
                   General Manager of their company, Mr. Satpal Harbans
                   Singh was intending to spend his annual vacation during
                   June – August 1997 in New Zealand, and had been employed
F                  by this organization since 1984, and was now drawing a
                   salary of $ 6,700 p.m.
                       It is relevant to note that this letter was not attested by
                   the Indian Embassy at Doha.
            3.4.   The Claimants placed on record the Passport of the
G
                   deceased, which reveals his date of birth as 10.08.1958.
                   The deceased was a little over 40 years of age at the time
                   of the accident.
                       The passport entries reveal frequent foreign travel during
                   the period 1986 till 1998 when he expired.
H
                                                                              675


       4. The MACT vide Award dated 30.03.2001 held that a perusal            A
of the first statement made by Claimant No. 1 – widow of the deceased
in the FIR, revealed that her husband was over-taking a tractor–trolley
when the accident occurred, because the Maruti car was coming at a
high speed from the opposite side. Consequently, the MACT held that it
was a case of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased Satpal
                                                                              B
Singh, as also on the part of the driver of the Maruti car.
      4.1.   The MACT applied the multiplier of 13, since the deceased
             was a little over 40 years of age at the time of his death.
      4.2.   With respect to the income of the deceased, the MACT
             held that the letter dated 27.06.1997 issued by the High         C
             Speed Group, had not been proved by the Claimants, nor
             was it attested by the Indian Embassy at Doha, and therefore
             refused to take it into consideration.
      4.3.   The MACT assumed that the income of the deceased Satpal
             Singh should be assessed just as an ordinary skilled worker,     D
             and assessed his income at Rs. 4,000 p.m. The amount of
             dependency was taken as Rs. 2,500 p.m. x 12 x 13 =
             Rs. 3.90 lacs. Since it was a case of contributory negligence,
             the compensation was reduced by 50%, which worked out
             to Rs. 1.80 lacs. An amount of Rs. 10,000 was awarded
             towards funeral expenses.                                        E

                The compensation of Rs. 1,90,000 would carry Interest
             @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the claim, till the date of
             payment.
      4.4.   The MACT held all three respondents i.e. the driver of the       F
             Maruti car, the owner of the car, and the Insurance Company
             liable to pay the compensation awarded, jointly and severally.
     5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment, the Claimants filed an
Appeal being F.A.O. No. 2294/2001 before the High Court for further
enhancement.
                                                                              G
      5.1.   The High Court vide the impugned Judgment and Order
             dated 10.03.2014 upheld the findings of the MACT regarding
             contributory negligence.
      5.2.   With respect to the income of the deceased, the High Court
             proceeded on the basis of the letter dated 27.06.1997 issued     H
676            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2020] 5 S.C.R.


A                  by the High Speed Group, , wherein it was stated that Satpal
                   Singh was working as a General Manager, and drawing a
                   salary of $ 6,700 p.m. which would be equivalent to
                   Rs. 2,68,000 p.m. at the time when the claim was filed.
            5.3.   The High Court assessed the compensation on the basis of
B                  the income at Rs. 2,68,000 p.m. and adopted the multiplier
                   of 12.
                      The contribution to the family was fixed at 50% of his
                   income, which would approximately be Rs. 1,34,000 p.m.
                      Rs. 50,000 was awarded towards loss of estate, and
C                  Rs. 10,000 towards funeral expenses.
                      On this basis, the total compensation payable to the
                   Claimants was computed at Rs. 96,78,000 after making a
                   partial abatement of 50% towards contributory negligence.

D                     The High Court held that since 50% of the income was
                   provided to the wife and children, it was not necessary to
                   provide for loss of consortium, and loss of love and affection.
            5.4.   The High Court held the Insurance Company to be liable to
                   pay the compensation, which would be distributed equally
                   between the widow and children of the deceased. The
E
                   enhanced amount of compensation would carry Interest
                   @7.5% p.a. from the date of filing the claim, till realization.
            6. The Appellant – Insurance Company filed SLP (Civil) No. 28548/
      2014 to challenge the impugned Judgment.
F           The Claimants also filed an SLP bearing SLP (Civil) No. 12520/
      2015 claiming further enhancement of compensation.
            7. We have perused the pleadings and the documentary evidence
      placed on record before the Courts below, and have considered the oral
      submissions made by the Counsel for the parties.
G           We are of the view that the judgments of both the MACT and the
      High Court are liable to be set aside, and the compensation is required to
      be awarded in accordance with the law expounded by this Court in
      various decisions.

H
                                                                               677


      8. Relevant principles for assessment of compensation in                 A
cases of death as evolved by judicial dicta.
       The criteria which are to be taken into consideration for assessing
compensation in the case of death, are : (i) the age of the deceased at
the time of his death; (ii) the number of dependants left behind by the
deceased; and (iii) the income of the deceased at the time of his death.       B
                                                                           1
       In Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.,
this Court held that to arrive at the loss of dependency, the tribunal ought
to take into consideration three factors :–
         i) Additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income;
                                                                               C
         ii) The deduction 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.
     In order to provide uniformity and consistency in awarding                D
compensation, the following steps are required to be followed :–
         “Step 1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand)
         The income of the deceased per annum should be determined.
         Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard
         to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself          E
         by way of personal and living expenses. The balance, which
         is considered to be the contribution to the dependant family,
         constitutes the multiplicand.
         Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier)
                                                                               F
         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          G
         this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table
         with reference to the age of the deceased.


1
    (2009) 6 SCC 121.
                                                                               H
678            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2020] 5 S.C.R.


A           Step 3 (Actual calculation)
            The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when
            multiplied by such multiplier gives the ‘loss of dependency’ to
            the family. Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of
            Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- may be added as loss of estate.
B           Where the deceased is survived by his widow, another
            conventional amount in the range of 5,000/- to 10,000/-
            should be added under the head of loss of consortium. But
            no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering
            or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased.
C           The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if
            incurred) and cost of any medical treatment of the deceased
            before death (if incurred) should also added.”
                                                           (emphasis supplied)
            (a) Deduction for personal and living expenses
D
              The personal and living expenses of the deceased should be
      deducted from the income, to arrive at the contribution to the family. In
      Sarla Verma (supra) (paras 30, 31 and 32), this Court took the view
      that it was necessary to standardize the deductions to be made under
      the head personal and living expenses of the deceased.
E
            Accordingly, it was held that :
            • where the deceased was married, the deduction towards
              personal and living expenses should be 1/3 rd if the number of
              dependant family members is two to three;
F           • 1/4th if the number of dependant family members is four to six;
              and
            • 1/5th if the number of dependant family members exceeds six.
            • If the deceased was a bachelor, and the claim was filed by the
              parents, the deduction would normally be 50% as personal and
G             living expenses of the bachelor.
                      Subject to evidence to the contrary, the father was likely
               to have his own income, and would not be considered to be a
               dependant. Hence, the mother alone will be considered to be a
               dependant.
H
                                                                                679


                    In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, brothers    A
             and sisters of the deceased bachelor would not be considered
             to be dependants, because they would usually either be
             independent and earning, or married, or dependant on the father.
                    Thus, even if the deceased was survived by parents
             and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a          B
             dependant. The deduction towards personal expenses of a
             bachelor would be 50%, and 50% would be the contribution to
             the family.
          • However, in a case where the family of the bachelor was large
            and dependant on the income of the deceased, as in a case           C
            where he had a widowed mother, and a large number of
            younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living
            expenses could be restricted to 1/3rd, and contribution to the
            family be taken as 2/3rd.
       A three-judge bench in Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan               D
& Anr.,2 affirmed the standards fixed in Sarla Verma (supra) with respect
to the deduction for personal and living expenses, and held that these
standards must ordinarily be followed, unless a case for departure is
made out. The Court held :
          “41. The above does provide guidance for the appropriate              E
          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 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                 F
          reference to the number of dependant members in the family
          and the personal living expenses of the deceased need not
          exactly correspond to the number of dependants.
          42. In our view, the standards fixed by this Court in Sarla
          Verma 2009 (6) SCC 121 on the aspect of deduction for                 G
          personal living expenses in paragraphs 30, 31 and 32 must
          ordinarily be followed unless a case for departure in the
          circumstances noted in the preceding para is made out.”
2
    (2013) 9 SCC 65.
                                                                                H
680               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2020] 5 S.C.R.


A             43. In what we have discussed above, we sum up our
              conclusions as follows:
              …
              43.6. Insofar as deduction for personal and living expenses
              is concerned, it is directed that the Tribunals shall ordinarily
B             follow the standards prescribed in paragraphs 30, 31 and 32
              of the judgment in Sarla Verma 2009 (6) SCC 121 subject to
              the observations made by us in para 38 above. …”
                                                           (emphasis supplied)

C            A Constitution Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co.
      Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.,3 held that the standards fixed in Sarla
      Verma (supra) would provide guidance for appropriate deduction towards
      personal and living expenses, and affirmed the conclusion in para 43.6
      of Reshma Kumari (supra).

D             (b) Determination of Multiplier
            With respect to the multiplier, the Court in Sarla Verma (supra),
      prepared a chart for fixing the applicable multiplier in accordance with
      the age of the deceased, after considering the judgments in General
      Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C., Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas & Ors.,4
      U.P.S.R.T.C. & Ors. v. Trilok Chandra & Ors.,5 and New India
E
      Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie & Ors.6
             The relevant extract from the said chart i.e. Column 4 has been
      set out hereinbelow for ready reference :–
          Age of the deceased                  Multiplier (Column 4)
F         Upto 15 years                        -

          15 to 20 years                       18

          21 to 25 years                       18

          26 to 30 years                       17
G
          31 to 35 years                       16

      3
        (2017) 16 SCC 680.
      4
        (1994) 2 SCC 176.
      5
        (1996) 4 SCC 362.
      6
H       (2005) 10 SCC 720.
                                                                          681


 36 to 40 years                        15                                 A
 41 to 45 years                        14

 46 to 50 years                        13

 51 to 55 years                        11
                                                                          B
 56 to 60 years                        9

 61 to 65 years                        7

 Above 65 years                        5


The Court in Sarla Verma (supra) held :–                                  C

      “42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should
      be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared
      by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie),
      which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age
      groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit         D
      for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16
      for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to
      45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two
      units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years,
      M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for          E
      66 to 70 years.”
                                                   (emphasis supplied)
       In Reshma Kumari (supra), this Court affirmed Column 4 of the
chart prepared in Sarla Verma (supra), and held that this would provide
uniformity and consistency in determining the multiplier to be applied.   F
The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra) affirmed the chart
fixing the multiplier as expounded in Sarla Verma (supra), and held :–
      “44. At this stage, we must immediately say that insofar as the
      aforesaid multiplicand/multiplier is concerned, it has to be
      accepted on the basis of income established by the legal            G
      representatives of the deceased. Future prospects are to be
      added to the sum on the percentage basis and “income” means
      actual income less than the tax paid. The multiplier has already
      been fixed in Sarla Verma which has been approved in Reshma
      Kumari with which we concur.
                                                                          H
      …
682             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2020] 5 S.C.R.


A            59.6. The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the
             Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that
             judgment.”
                                                            (emphasis supplied)
           (c) Age of the deceased must be the basis for determining
B     the multiplier even in case of a bachelor.
             In Sarla Verma (supra), this Court held that the multiplier should
      be determined with reference to the age of the deceased. This was
      subsequently affirmed in Reshma Kumari (supra), and followed in a
      line of decisions.
C
             A three-judge bench in Munna Lal Jain & Ors. v. Vipin Kumar
      Sharma & Ors.,7 held that the issue had been decided in Reshma Kumari
      (supra), wherein this Court held that the multiplier must be with reference
      to the age of the deceased. The decision in Munna Lal Jain (supra)
      was followed by another three-judge bench of this Court in Sube Singh
D     & Ors. v. Shyam Singh (dead) & Ors.8
            The Constitution Bench in National Insurance Company Limited
      v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.,9 affirmed the view taken in Sarla Verma (supra)
      and Reshma Kumari (supra), and held that the age of the deceased
      should be the basis for applying the multiplier.
E
             Another three-judge bench in Royal Sundaram Alliance
      Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mandala Yadagari Goud & Ors.,10 traced out
      the law on this issue, and held that the compensation is to be computed
      based on what the deceased would have contributed to support the
      dependants. In the case of the death of a married person, it is an accepted
F     norm that the age of the deceased would be taken into account. Thus,
      even in the case of a bachelor, the same principle must be applied.
              The aforesaid legal position has recently been re-affirmed by this
      Court in Sunita Tokas and Ors. v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. and
      Ors. 11
G

      7
        (2015) 6 SCC 347.
      8
        (2018) 3 SCC 18.
      9
        (2017) 16 SCC 680.
      10
         (2019) 5 SCC 554.
      11
H        2019 (11) SCALE 24.
                                                                             683


      (d) Future Prospects                                                   A
       In the wake of increased inflation, rising consumer prices, and
general standards of living, future prospects have to be taken into
consideration, not only with respect to the status or educational
qualifications of the deceased, but also other relevant factors such as
higher salaries and perks which are being offered by private companies       B
these days. The dearness allowance and perks from which the family
would have derived monthly benefit, are required to be taken into
consideration for determining the loss of dependency.
      In Sarla Verma (supra), this Court held :
      “24. In Susamma Thomas, this Court increased the income by             C
      nearly 100%, in Sarla Dixit, the income was increased only
      by 50% and in Abati Bezbaruah the income was increased by
      a mere 7%. In view of imponderables and uncertainties, we
      are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of
      50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the                D
      deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had
      a permanent job and was below 40 years. [Where the annual
      income is in the taxable range, the words ‘actual salary’
      should be read as ‘actual salary less tax’]. The addition
      should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50
      years. There should be no addition, where the age of deceased          E
      is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a
      different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardize
      the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or
      different methods of calculations being adopted. Where the
      deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without           F
      provision for annual increments etc.), the courts will usually
      take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure
      therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases
      involving special circumstances.”
                                                     (emphasis supplied)     G
       In Pranay Sethi (supra), the Constitution Bench evaluated all
the judicial precedents on the issue of future prospects including Sarla
Verma (supra), and devised a fixed standard for granting future prospects.
It was held :
                                                                             H
684      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2020] 5 S.C.R.


A     “57. Having bestowed our anxious consideration, we are
      disposed to think when we accept the principle of
      standardization, there is really no rationale not to apply the
      said principle to the self-employed or a person who is on a
      fixed salary. To follow the doctrine of actual income at the
      time of death and not to add any amount with regard to future
B
      prospects to the income for the purpose of determination of
      multiplicand would be unjust. The determination of income
      while computing compensation has to include future prospects
      so that the method will come within the ambit and sweep of
      just compensation as postulated Under Section 168 of the
C     Act. In case of a deceased who had held a permanent job
      with inbuilt grant of annual increment, there is an acceptable
      certainty. But to state that the legal representatives of a
      deceased who was on a fixed salary would not be entitled to
      the benefit of future prospects for the purpose of computation
      of compensation would be inapposite. It is because the
D
      criterion of distinction between the two in that event would
      be certainty on the one hand and staticness on the other. One
      may perceive that the comparative measure is certainty on
      the one hand and uncertainty on the other but such a
      perception is fallacious. It is because the price rise does affect
E     a self-employed person; and that apart there is always an
      incessant effort to enhance one’s income for sustenance. The
      purchasing capacity of a salaried person on permanent job
      when increases because of grant of increments and pay
      revision or for some other change in service conditions, there
      is always a competing attitude in the private sector to enhance
F
      the salary to get better efficiency from the employees. Similarly,
      a person who is self-employed is bound to garner his resources
      and raise his charges/fees so that he can live with same
      facilities. To have the perception that he is likely to remain
      static and his income to remain stagnant is contrary to the
G     fundamental concept of human attitude which always intends
      to live with dynamism and move and change with the time.
      Though it may seem appropriate that there cannot be certainty
      in addition of future prospects to the existing income unlike
      in the case of a person having a permanent job, yet the said
      perception does not really deserve acceptance. We are inclined
H
                                                                     685


to think that there can be some degree of difference as regards      A
the percentage that is meant for or applied to in respect of
the legal representatives who claim on behalf of the deceased
who had a permanent job than a person who is self-employed
or on a fixed salary. But not to apply the principle of
standardization on the foundation of perceived lack of
                                                                     B
certainty would tantamount to remaining oblivious to the
marrows of ground reality. And, therefore, degree-test is
imperative. Unless the degree-test is applied and left to the
parties to adduce evidence to establish, it would be unfair
and inequitable. The degree-test has to have the inbuilt concept
of percentage. Taking into consideration the cumulative              C
factors, namely, passage of time, the changing society,
escalation of price, the change in price index, the human
attitude to follow a particular pattern of life, etc., an addition
of 40% of the established income of the deceased towards
future prospects and where the deceased was below 40 years
                                                                     D
an addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age
of 40 to 50 years would be reasonable.
59. The controversy does not end here. The question still
remains whether there should be no addition where the age
of the deceased is more than 50 years. Sarla Verma thinks it
appropriate not to add any amount and the same has been              E
approved in Reshma Kumari. Judicial notice can be taken of
the fact that salary does not remain the same. When a person
is in a permanent job, there is always an enhancement due to
one reason or the other. To lay down as a thumb Rule that
there will be no addition after 50 years will be an unacceptable     F
concept. We are disposed to think, there should be an addition
of 15% if the deceased is between the age of 50 to 60 years
and there should be no addition thereafter. Similarly, in case
of self-employed or person on fixed salary, the addition should
be 10% between the age of 50 to 60 years. The aforesaid
yardstick has been fixed so that there can be consistency in         G
the approach by the tribunals and the courts.
59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record
our conclusions:
…                                                                    H
686            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2020] 5 S.C.R.


A           59.3. While determining the income, an addition of 50% of
            actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future
            prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was
            below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should
            be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years.
            In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years,
B
            the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as
            actual salary less tax.
            59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed
            salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should
            be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40
C           years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between
            the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was
            between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the
            necessary method of computation. The established income
            means the income minus the tax component. …”
D                                                           (emphasis supplied)
            (e) Three Conventional Heads
             In Pranay Sethi (supra), the Constitution Bench held that in death
      cases, compensation would be awarded only under three conventional
E     heads viz. loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses.
             The Court held that the conventional and traditional heads, cannot
      be determined on percentage basis, because that would not be an
      acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have
      to be quantified, which has to be based on a reasonable foundation. It
F     was observed that factors such as price index, fall in bank interest,
      escalation of rates, are aspects which have to be taken into consideration.
      The Court held that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely,
      loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be
      Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The Court was
      of the view that the amounts to be awarded under these conventional
G     heads should be enhanced by 10% every three years, which will bring
      consistency in respect of these heads.
            a) Loss of Estate – Rs. 15,000 to be awarded
            b) Loss of Consortium
H
                                                                               687


       Loss of Consortium, in legal parlance, was historically given a         A
narrow meaning to be awarded only to the spouse i.e. the right of the
spouse to the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, society, solace,
affection and sexual relations with his or her mate. The loss of
companionship, love, care and protection, etc., the spouse is entitled to
get, has to be compensated appropriately. The concept of non-pecuniary
                                                                               B
damage for loss of consortium is one of the major heads for awarding
compensation in various jurisdictions such as the United States of
America, Australia, etc. English courts have recognised the right of a
spouse to get compensation even during the period of temporary
disablement.
       In Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram & Ors.,12               C
this Court interpreted “consortium” to be a compendious term, which
encompasses spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as filial
consortium. The right to consortium would include the company, care,
help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is
a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual        D
relations with the deceased spouse.
       Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature
death of a parent, for loss of parental aid, protection, affection, society,
discipline, guidance and training.
        Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the   E
case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death
of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the
deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during
their lifetime. Children are valued for their love and affection, and their
role in the family unit.                                                       F
        Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognized that the value
of a child’s consortium far exceeds the economic value of the
compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most
jurisdictions permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of
consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents          G
is the compensation for loss of love and affection, care and companionship
of the deceased child.


12
     (2018) 18 SCC 130.
                                                                               H
688            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2020] 5 S.C.R.


A            The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial legislation which has
      been framed with the object of providing relief to the victims, or their
      families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost
      their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled
      to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of Filial Consortium.
B           Parental Consortium is awarded to the children who lose the care
      and protection of their parents in motor vehicle accidents.
           The amount to be awarded for loss consortium will be as per the
      amount fixed in Pranay Sethi (supra).
             At this stage, we consider it necessary to provide uniformity with
C     respect to the grant of consortium, and loss of love and affection. Several
      Tribunals and High Courts have been awarding compensation for both
      loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. The Constitution Bench
      in Pranay Sethi (supra), has recognized only three conventional heads
      under which compensation can be awarded viz. loss of estate, loss of
D     consortium and funeral expenses.
             In Magma General (supra), this Court gave a comprehensive
      interpretation to consortium to include spousal consortium, parental
      consortium, as well as filial consortium. Loss of love and affection is
      comprehended in loss of consortium.
E            The Tribunals and High Courts are directed to award compensation
      for loss of consortium, which is a legitimate conventional head. There is
      no justification to award compensation towards loss of love and affection
      as a separate head.
            c) Funeral Expenses – Rs. 15,000 to be awarded
F
            The aforesaid conventional heads are to be revised every three
      years @10%.
            9. We will now apply the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid
      judgments, to compute the compensation payable to the dependants of
      the deceased Satpal Singh in the present case.
G
              9.1. We will first deal with the issue of assessing the income of
                   the deceased. The MACT assumed that the deceased was
                   a skilled worker, and fixed his income at Rs. 4,000 p.m.
                      It is pertinent to note that the income of the deceased in
H                  1984 as per his Employment Contract Form dated
                                                               689


21.08.1984, was 750 Qatari Riyal p.m. This document was        A
duly certified by the Indian Embassy at Doha.
    The accident occurred on 18.11.1998, which is 15 years
after he shifted to Doha. The MACT could not have
assumed the income of the deceased to have remained at
Rs. 4,000 p.m. after having worked for over 14 years in        B
Doha.
    The High Court has also erroneously awarded
compensation on the basis of the letter dated 27.06.1997
purported to have been written by the High Speed Group to
the Counselor, New Zealand Consulate for issuance of a         C
visa to the deceased Satpal Singh who was engaged by
their organization since 1984, and was drawing a salary of
$ 6,700 p.m.
   The Insurance Company has seriously disputed the
authenticity of this letter.                                   D
   We have perused the said letter, and are inclined to
accept the submission made on behalf of the Insurance
Company, that the said document was not attested by the
Indian Embassy at Doha, as per the Diplomatic & Consular
Offices Oaths and Fees Act, 1948.                              E
   The said document was not proved by the Claimants,
and cannot form the basis of computing the income of the
deceased.
   The letter dated 27.06.1997 seems to be suspicious for
two other grounds. One, as per the Employment Contract         F
Form dated 21.08.1984 certified by the Indian Embassy at
Doha, the deceased was engaged by the firm Ali Al Fayyad
Trading Contracting Est., Doha in 1984. The letter dated
27.06.1997 issued by the High Speed Group, stated that the
deceased was employed with them since 1984. This leads
                                                               G
to a serious doubt about the authenticity of the letter.
Furthermore, the salary is mentioned in U.S. Dollars, rather
than Qatari Riyal, even though the High Speed Group is a
local company in Qatar.
   Second, the letter dated 27.06.1997 was addressed to
the Counselor, New Zealand Consulate for a visa to be          H
690   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2020] 5 S.C.R.


A         issued to the deceased for his annual vacation to New
          Zealand during the period June – August, 1997. The passport
          entries however, do not show that the deceased travelled
          to New Zealand.
              Consequently, we have serious doubts about the
B         authenticity and veracity of the letter dated 27.06.1997, and
          decline to make it the basis for computing the income of
          the deceased at the time of his death.
             The High Court by relying on the letter dated 27.06.1997,
          awarded an amount of Rs. 1,93,56,000 to the Claimants,
C         which after reducing by 50% on account of contributory
          negligence, worked out to Rs. 96,78,000. It is pertinent to
          note that the Claimants had prayed for an amount of Rs. 50
          lacs as compensation in their claim petition before the
          MACT. The High Court has committed an error in awarding
          such an exorbitant amount on the basis of an unverified
D         document, the authenticity of which was seriously disputed.
              In the absence of any other evidence being produced
          by the Claimants, the income of the deceased would be
          required to be computed by taking his base salary at 750
          Qatari Riyal p.m. in 1984 as a skilled labourer, as reflected
E         in his Employment Contract Form.
              A perusal of the passport entries of the deceased reveal
          that he had continued to remain in employment for a period
          of over 14 years in Qatar till he passed away in 1998. He
          was evidently doing fairly well, since there are numerous
F         entries of foreign travel in his passport during the 14 years
          of his stay in Doha. By taking an increment of 10% per
          annum from 1984 till 1998, the notional income of the
          deceased could be fixed at 2590 Qatari Riyal p.m., which
          can be rounded off to 2600 Qatari Riyal p.m. As per the
G         exchange rate prevailing in 1998, 1 Qatari Riyal was
          equivalent to 12.41 INR. Accordingly, the income of the
          deceased would work out to 2600 x 12.41 =
          Rs. 32,266 p.m. i.e. Rs. 3,87,192 p.a.
      9.2. Even though in Sarla Verma (supra), it was held that the
           deduction towards personal and living expenses should be
H
                                                                      691


    1/4th, if the number of dependant family members is four, in      A
    the present case, we feel that 50% of the income of the
    deceased would be required to be deducted, since he was
    living in a foreign country.
        The deceased had to maintain an establishment there,
    and incur expenditure for the same in commensurate with           B
    the high cost of living in a foreign country. Therefore, we
    are of the view that the High Court rightly deducted 50%
    of his income towards personal and living expenses.
9.3. In the present case, the courts below failed to award any
     amount towards future prospects. The deceased Satpal             C
     Singh was just over 40 years of age at the time of his death.
     As per the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Pranay
     Sethi (supra), future prospects @30% are to be awarded
     for computing the compensation payable to the Claimants.
9.4. The multiplicand for computing the compensation would            D
     therefore, work out to Rs. 3,87,192 – 50% + 30% =
     Rs. 2,51,675.
9.5. The deceased Satpal Singh was 40 years of age at the time
     of his death. Accordingly, the multiplier of 15 would be the
     appropriate multiplier as per the table set out in Sarla Verma   E
     (supra).
9.6. Multiplying the multiplicand of Rs. 2,51,675 by the multiplier
     of 15, the loss of dependency payable to the Claimants would
     work out to Rs. 37,75,125.
9.7. Insofar as the conventional heads are concerned, the             F
     deceased Satpal Singh left behind a widow and three children
     as his dependants. On the basis of the judgments in Pranay
     Sethi (supra) and Magma General (supra), the following
     amounts are awarded under the conventional heads :-
    i) Loss of Estate: Rs. 15,000                                     G
    ii) Loss of Consortium:
        a) Spousal Consortium: Rs. 40,000
        b) Parental Consortium: 40,000 x 3 = Rs. 1,20,000
    iii) Funeral Expenses : Rs. 15,000                                H
692              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2020] 5 S.C.R.


A                9.8. We affirm the deduction of 50% made by the MACT and
                      the High Court towards contributory negligence.
           10. In light of the aforesaid discussion, the Claimants are awarded
      compensation as follows :
            i)    Income :                         Rs. 3,87,192 p.a.
B
            ii) Deduction towards
                  Personal Expenses :              50%
            iii) Future Prospects :                30%
            iv) Multiplicand :                     Rs. 2,51,675
C
                                                   (3,87,192-50%+30%)
            v) Multiplier :                        15
            vi) Loss of Dependency :               Rs. 37,75,125
                                                   (2,51,675 x 15)
D
            vii) Funeral Expenses :                Rs. 15,000
            viii) Loss of Estate :                 Rs. 15,000
            ix) Loss of Spousal Consortium :       Rs. 40,000
            x) Loss of Parental Consortium to
E
                  each of the 3 children :         Rs. 1,20,000
            xi) Total compensation :               Rs. 39,65,125
            xii) Deduction on account
F                 of contributory negligence :     50%
                  Total compensation to
                  be paid :                        Rs. 19,82,563
            11. This Court vide Order dated 13.10.2014 had stayed the
      operation of the impugned judgment subject to the Appellant – Insurance
G
      Company depositing a sum of Rs. 10 lacs before the Trial Court. The
      Claimants were granted liberty to withdraw the same.
             12. The Appellant – Insurance Company is directed to pay the
      balance amount of compensation within a period of twelve weeks’ from
      the date of this judgment.
H
                                                                               693



       13. The deceased Satpal Singh had died on 18.11.1998. His               A
dependants have been pursuing legal proceedings for grant of
compensation since the past 22 years. As a consequence, we deem it
appropriate to direct that Interest @12% p.a. be paid on the total
compensation awarded, from the date of filing the claim petition, till
realization.                                                                   B
      14. The Claimant No. 1 i.e. widow of the deceased has suffered
permanent disability of 25% in this accident. She has single-handedly
raised her three minor children, and eked out her livelihood through
agricultural activity.
      We direct that 50% of the total compensation (inclusive of interest)     C
be given to the Claimant No. 1 i.e. widow of the deceased, and the
balance 50% be divided equally between the three children.
      15. The Civil Appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

                                                                               D
Divya Pandey                                            Appeals disposed of.




                                                                               E




                                                                               F




                                                                               G




                                                                               H