M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. versus MANDALA YADAGARI GOUD & ORS.
[2019] 6 S.C.R. 941, Supreme Court of India, 2019
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Issues
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
941
          M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE
                                      COMPANY LTD.
v.
MANDALA YADAGARI GOUD & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.6600 of 2015)
    APRIL 09, 2019
[S. A. BOBDE, SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Accident – Calculation of a multiplier – Where
there is death of a person, who is a bachelor, in that case the
multiplier is to be calculated on basis of the age of deceased or age
of the dependents – Appellant contended that it is the age of the
dependents which has to be taken into account – Held: This issue is
settled by the  judgments of  three Judge Bench of Supreme Court in
Sube Singh & Anr. v. Shyam Singh (Dead) & Ors., Munna Lal Jain &
Anr. v. Vipin Kumar Sharma & Ors., Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan
Mohan & Anr. and also judgment of the Constitution Bench in
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. that it is the
age of the deceased which has to be taken into account and not the
age of the dependents – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s.140.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1. The judicial pronouncements of this Court have
endeavoured to devise a standard formula, so far as possible, in
respect of the calculation of the amount of compensation qua
various components.  The amount of compensation determined
is to be paid to the claimants who are dependents in case of a
death of a person based on what the deceased would have
contributed to their support.  The amount thus
received by the
dependents in turn becomes a part of the estate as they may live
longer or may be younger than the age limits taken into account
for calculation of a multiplier to be applied in such a situation.  In
the context of liability to pay compensation on the principle of no
fault, as enunciated under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, thus, it was observed by this Court that even if there is no
loss of dependency, the quantification cannot be below that amount
[2019] 6 S.C.R. 941
 941
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
942
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
and to that extent the amount would form a part of the estate of
the deceased.[Para 8][946-C-E]
2. The focus for determination of such claim is the deceased
and what would be his contribution towards the dependents would
he to be alive, for the benefits of the dependents.  It is trite to
say, and in fact conceded by the learned counsel for the insurance
company, that in case the deceased is a married person, it is the
age of the deceased which is to be taken into account.  The
question is whether in case the deceased is a bachelor, a different
principle for calculation of the multiplier should be applied by
shifting the focus to the age of the claimants?  This Court is of
the view that the answer to this question should be in the negative.
[Para 9][946-F-G]
3. A reading of the judgment in Sube Singh & Anr. v. Shaym
Singh (Dead) & Ors. shows that where a three Judge Bench has
categorically taken the view that it is the age of the deceased and
not the age of the parents that would be the factor for the purposes
of taking the multiplier to be applied.  This judgment undoubtedly
relied upon the case of Munna Lal Jain & Anr. v. Vipin Kumar
Sharma & Ors. which is also a three Judge Bench judgment in
this behalf.  The relevant portion of the judgment has also been
extracted.  Once again the extracted portion in turn refers to the
judgment of a three Judge Bench in Reshma Kumari & Ors. v.
Madan Mohan & Anr.  The relevant
portion of Reshma Kumari in
turn has referred to Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr. and given its imprimatur to the same.  The
loss of dependency is thus stated to be based on : (i) additions/
deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) 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 the deceased.  It is the third aspect which is of
significance and Reshma Kumari  categorically states that it does
not want to revisit the law settled in Sarla Verma case in this
behalf. [Para 11][947-A-D]
Sube Singh & Anr. v. Shaym Singh (Dead) & Ors.
(2018) 3 SCC 18 : [2018] 1 SCR 636;
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
943
Munna Lal Jain & Anr. v. Vipin Kumar Sharma & Ors.
(2015) 6 SCC 347 :  [2015] 7 SCR 207 ; Reshma Kumari
& Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr.  (2013) 9 SCC 65 :
[2013] 2 SCR 706  – relied on.
Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 : [2009]  5 SCR
1098 – referred to.
4. Thus, there is no need to once again take up this issue
settled by the aforesaid judgments of three Judge Bench and
also relying upon the Constitution Bench that it is the age of the
deceased which has to be taken into account and not the age of
the dependents.  [Para 13][947-E-F]
C.A.No.1953/2019 @ SLP(C)NO.19797/2015
5. In view of the judgment delivered in Civil Appeal
No.6600/2015 titled as M/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Mandala Yadagari Gold & Ors., opining that it
is the age of the deceased and not such of the dependents in case
of the death of a bachelor which is to be the basis for the multiplier.
[Para 17][948-B-C]
C.A.No.178/2017
6. In view of the judgment delivered in Civil Appeal
No.6600/2015 titled as M/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance
Company Ltd. v. Mandala Yadagari Gold & Ors., the multiplier in
the present case will be 16, and not as per the impugned order,
based on the age of the deceased. [Para 18][948-D]
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi &
Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 – followed.
New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Shanti Pathak
(Smt.) & Ors. (2007) 10 SCC 1 : [2007] 8 SCR 237;
Manjuri Bera (Smt) v.
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
And Anr. (2007) 10 SCC 643 : [2007] 4 SCR 590 –
referred to.
  M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE
CO.  LTD  v. MANDALA YADAGARI GOUD
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
944
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
Case Law Reference
[2018] 1 SCR 636
relied on
Para 4
[2015] 7 SCR 207
relied on
Para 4
[2009] 5 SCR 1098
referred to
Para 4
(2017) 16 SCC 680
followed
Para 4
[2007] 8 SCR 237
referred to
Para 4
[2007] 4 SCR 590
referred to
Para 8
[2013] 2 SCR 706
relied on
Para 11
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6600
of  2015
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.01.2014 of the High Court
of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in M.A.C.M.A. No.
2339 of 2011
With
Civil Appeal Nos.1953, 1954 of 2019 and 178 of 2017.
G. Balaji, Yunus Malik, Anish Maheshwari, Ms. Saroj Bala, Aman
Malik, Sanjeev Agarwal, Karri Venkata Reddy, Ashutosh Kumar
Srivastava, Shivnath Tripathi, Satyendra Kumar Chauhan, Arvind S.
Avhad, Advs. for the Appellant.
K. K. Bhat, Ranjan Kumar Pandey, Ms. Garima Prashad, J.D.N.
Shahi, M. K. Dua, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
C.A.No.6600/2015 & C.A. NO.1954/2019 @ SLP(C)5603/2019
@ CC No.11685/2016
1. The only legal issue canvassed before us in these matters, which
are in the nature of cross appeals, is that in the case of a motor accident
where there is death of a person, who is a bachelor, whether the age of
the deceased or the age of the dependents would be taken into account
for calculating the multiplier.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
945
2. The appellant in C.A.No.6600/2015 is the insurance company,
whose counsel submits that it is the age of the dependents which has to
be taken into account and thus the High Court has fallen into an error by
taking the multiplier on the basis of the age of the deceased.
3. To support his contention, learned counsel, for reference
purposes, filed two compilations of judgments one against him and one
in his favour.  We put a specific query to the learned counsel as to
whether there are any three Judge Bench decisions dealing with the
issue, as there was no purpose in looking at multiplicity of judgments,
and what was the last view adopted by this Court in this behalf.
4. Learned counsel conceded that a three Judge bench of this
Court in Sube Singh & Anr. Vs. Shaym Singh (Dead) & Ors.1, looked
into this issue and has opined that it is the age of the deceased which
should be the basis of the multiplier.  However, his contention is that a
reading of this judgment would show that reliance has been placed on
the earlier judgment in Munna Lal Jain & Anr. Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma
& Ors.2, to come to this conclusion.  Munna Lal Jain (supra) in turn
relied upon the judgment in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation & Anr.3, which view is stated to have been
affirmed by the Constitution Bench in National Insurance Company
Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.4  It  was  submitted that a sequential
error has taken place as Sarla Verma (supra) did not deal
with the case
of a deceased bachelor and thus, the imprimatur given in Pranay Sethi
case could be of no avail.  Thus, a mere affirmation of the views in Sube
Singh (supra) also does not settle this legal position.  On the other hand,
there are two Judge Bench judgments taking a contra view that the age
of the dependents is what has to be the basis for multiplier and not the
age of the deceased in the case of death of a bachelor.  He also made a
reference to one order of a three Judge Bench in New India Assurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Shanti Pathak (Smt.) & Ors.5, but that one is
indisputably an adjudication on given facts.
5. Insofar as the appeal filed by the claimants are concerned, it is
not in dispute that 50% has been granted  for future prospects, and that
1(2018) 3 SCC 18
2(2015) 6 SCC 347
3(2009) 6 SCC 121
4(2017) 16 SCC 680
5(2007) 10 SCC 1
  M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE
CO.  LTD  v. MANDALA YADAGARI GOUD [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
946
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
is the only aspect before us seeking an enhancement of the same.  In
this behalf it is pointed out to us that actually 40% ought to have been
awarded in terms of Pranay Sethi case (supra).
6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the matters in
issue.
7. The concept of insurance for a motor vehicle is to  cover risk in
case of an accident.  The insurance policy covers  personal  risk  of
injury or death, including for third parties.  The premium charged in this
behalf is uniform.
8. The judicial pronouncements of this Court have endeavoured
to devise a standard formula, so far as possible, in respect of the
calculation of the amount of compensation qua various components.  The
amount of compensation determined is to be paid to the claimants who
are dependents in case of a death of a person based on what the deceased
would have contributed to their support.  The amount thus received by
the dependents in turn becomes a part of the estate as they may live
longer or may be younger than the age limits taken into account for
calculation of a multiplier to be applied in such a situation.  In the context
of liability to pay compensation on the principle of no fault, as enunciated
under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, thus, it was observed
by this Court that even if there is no loss of dependency, the quantification
cannot be below that amount and to that extent the amount would form
a part of the estate
of the deceased6.
9. The focus for determination of such claim is the deceased and
what would be his contribution towards the dependents would he to be
alive, for the benefits of the dependents.  It is trite to say, and in fact
conceded by the learned counsel for the insurance company, that in
case the deceased is a married person, it is the age of the deceased
which is to be taken into account.  The question is whether in case the
deceased is a bachelor, a different principle for calculation of the multiplier
should be applied by shifting the focus to the age of the claimants?  We
are of the view that the answer to this question should be in the negative.
10. We may also note the importance of applying uniform settled
principle to such cases.  Certainty of law is important.  Once the law is
settled, it should not be repeatedly changed as that itself causes confusion
6See Manjuri Bera (Smt)  v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. And Anr.,(2007) 10
SCC 643
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
947
and litigation.  It is with this objection that this Court has endeavoured to
settle legal principles in respect of the matter in question.
11. A reading of the judgment in Sube Singh (supra) shows that
where a three Judge Bench has categorically taken the view that it is
the age of the deceased and not the age of the parents that would be the
factor for the purposes of taking the multiplier to be applied.  This judgment
undoubtedly relied upon the case of Munna Lal Jain (supra) which is
also a three Judge Bench judgment in this behalf.  The relevant portion
of the judgment has also been extracted.  Once again the extracted
portion in turn refers to the judgment of a three Judge Bench in Reshma
Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr.7.  The relevant portion of
Reshma Kumari in turn has referred to Sarla Verma (supra) case and
given its imprimatur to the same.  The  loss of dependency is thus stated
to be based on : (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the
income; (ii) 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 the deceased.  It is the third aspect which is of
significance and Reshma Kumari  categorically states that it does not
want to revisit the law settled in Sarla Verma case in this behalf.
12. Not only this, the subsequent judgment of the Constitution
bench in Pranay Sethi (supra) has also been referred to in Sube Singh
for the purpose
of calculation of the multiplier.
13.  We are convinced that there is no need to once again take up
this issue settled by the aforesaid judgments of three Judge Bench and
also relying upon the Constitution Bench that it is the age of the deceased
which has to be taken into account and not the age of the dependents.
14. The aforesaid being the only issue which has been raised by
the insurance company, we find the appeal filed by the insurance company
without merit.
15. We have already noticed that insofar as the claimants are
concerned, they have already been granted more than a reasonable
amount for future prospects and on that account also no interference is
called for in the impugned judgment.
7(2013) 9 SCC 65
  M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE
CO.  LTD  v. MANDALA YADAGARI GOUD [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
948
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
16. The result is that both the appeals are dismissed leaving the
parties to bear their own costs.   Pending application, if any, stands
disposed of.
C.A.No.1953/2019 @ SLP(C)NO.19797/2015 :
17. In view of the judgment delivered today in Civil Appeal
No.6600/2015 titled as M/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Mandala Yadagari Gold & Ors., opining that it is
the age of the deceased and not such of the dependents in case of the
death of a bachelor which is to be the basis for the multiplier, this appeal
is also liable to be dismissed as this is the only plea urged.  Pending
application, if any, stands disposed of.
C.A.No.178/2017
18. In view of the judgment delivered today in Civil Appeal
No.6600/2015 titled as M/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Mandala Yadagari Gold & Ors., the multiplier in
the present case will be 16, and not as per the impugned order, based on
the age of the deceased.  The amount now payable in view thereof
would be as under :
Sl.No. Particulars 
MACT 
High Court 
Payable 
1. 
Salary 
Rs.7242/- 
Rs.7242/- 
Rs.7242/- 
2. 
Annual 
Income 
86,904 
(7242x12) 
86,904 
(7242x12) 
86,904 
(7242x12) 
3. 
Add Future 
Prospects  
Nil 
Nil 
50% = 
1,30,356/- 
4.
Less :
1/3
50%
50% = 
65,178 
5.
Multiplier
8
(on the basis of 
average age of 
the parents  = 57 
1/2 years 
11
(Average age of 
parents 54 & 53 
years) 
16
(Age of the 
deceased) 
(65,178X16 
= 10,42,848) 
6.
Loss of 
companion-
ship 
2000/- 
2000/- 
30,000/- 
7. 
Total 
4,65,488/- 
4,79,972/- 
10,72,848/- 
8. 
Difference 
Nil 
Nil 
5,92,876/- 
9.
Interest
9%
9%
9%

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
949
19. We may note that learned counsel appearing for the respondent
also sought to canvas that the only change being on account of the
multiplier, that plea was not even raised in the appeal.  We, however,
find that ground (4) of the special leave petition is wide enough to cover
that issue.  The appeal is thus allowed to the aforesaid extent. Pending
application, if any, stands disposed of.
Ankit Gyan
                           Appeals disposed of.
  M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE
CO.  LTD  v. MANDALA YADAGARI GOUD [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]