MUNNALAL JAIN AND ANOTHER versus VIPIN KUMAR SHARMAANO OTHERS
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 207, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Facts
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 207 
MUNNALALJAINANDANOTHER 
. .. 
v. 
VIPIN KUMAR SHARMAANO OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 4497 of 2015) 
MAY 15, 2015 
[ANIL R. DAVE, MADAN B. LOKUR AND 
KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.] 
A 
B 
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, 
207 
H

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 
D 
E 
Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Limited 
2012 (3) SCR 1178: (2012) 6 SCC 421 - referred to 
" 
Case Law Reference 
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 
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. 
G 
Anuj Jain (For Yash Pal Dhingra) for the Appellants. 
Avinash Kr. Lakhanpal, Abhishek Kumar, Viresh B. 
Saharya for the Respondents. 
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 Limited1. 
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: 
D 
E 
F 
"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. 
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 
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 
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 others4, 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: 
"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 
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 
F 
G 
H
212 
A 
B 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 
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." 
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: 
"19. xxx 
)()()( 
)()()( 
Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) 
Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of 
B 
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. 
B 
16. The appeal is allowed as above. There shall be no 
order as to costs. 
Bibhuti Bhushan Bose 
Appeal allowed. 
,IJ 
•r'