# SHRI NAGAR MAL AND ORS v. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ORS

- **Citation:** [2018] 1 S.C.R. 283
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2018-01-19
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 448 of 2018
- **Bench:** Dipak Misra, A. M. Khanwilkar, Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/shri-nagar-mal-and-ors-v-the-oriental-insurance-company-ltd-and-ors-32638
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Motor Vehicles - Motor Accident Claim - 20 year old son of
appellant died in an accident - Claims Tribunal (MACT) adopted
income of the deceased to be Rs.6,000/-p.m - It applied a multiplier
of 11 on the basis of the age of the parents of the deceased and
granted compensation of Rs.4,31,000/- - High Court declined to
interfere with the award of the Tribunal - On appeal, held: Tribunal
gave cogent reasons for declining claim of the appellant that
deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month - Correct multiplier
would be 17 based on the age of the deceased and an addition of
40% towards future prospects is also warranted - Loss of dependency
is Rs 8,56,800/- - Appellant also entitled to Rs.15,000/- for loss of
estate and a further Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses - Accordingly,
appellant granted total compensation of Rs 8,86,800/- with interest
@7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition before MACT till
realization.
The appellant no.1's son who was aged 20 years, died in an
accident after a truck dashed against his motor cycle. Appellant filed
claim before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT). The Tribunal
declined to accept the income certificates produced by the appellant in
support of his claim that his son had a monthly earning of Rs.15,000/-
and instead took the income to be Rs.8,000/-. Applying a multiplier of 11
on the basis of the age of the parents of the deceased, it granted
compensation of Rs.4,31,000/-. In appeal, the High Court declined to
interfere with the award of the Tribunal. Hence, the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Tribunal gave cogent reasons for declining
to accept the income certificates which were relied upon by the
father of the deceased. No witnesses were examined on behalf of
the companies which were alleged to have issued the certificates
[2018] 1 S.C.R. 283
283
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
284
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 1 S.C.R.
to prove the certificates. Evidently there was a failure to establish
that the deceased, who was a student pursuing his C.A. was in
receipt of a monthly income of Rs 15,000/-. Hence, the
assessment of income by the Tribunal cannot be faulted. [Para
6][286-C-D]
1.2 However, there is merit in the submission which has
been urged on behalf of the appellants that the Tribunal failed to
apply the correct multiplier and erred in not granting the benefit
of future prospects in computing the income of the deceased and
the loss of dependency. Having regard to the judgment delivered
by the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in the cases of Pranay
Sethi and Sarla Verma the correct multiplier should be 17 having
regard to the age of the deceased and an addition of 40 per cent
towards future prospects would also be warranted. On this basis
and since the deceased was a bachelor, the loss of dependency
would work out to Rs 8,56,800/-. The appellants would be entitled
to an amount of Rs 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs 15,000/
- towards funeral expenses. The award of compensation
accordingly stands quantified at Rs 8,86,800/-. The appellants
are allowed interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of the filing of the
petition before the M.A.C.T. till realization. [Para 7][286-D-G]
National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi
(2017) 13 SCALE 12; Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport
Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 21 : [2009] 5 SCR 1098 -
followed.
Case Law Reference
(2017) 13 SCALE 12
 followed
Para 7
 [2009] 5 SCR 1098
 followed
Para 7

## Text

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
283
SHRI NAGAR MAL AND ORS.
v.
 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 448 of 2018)
JANUARY 19, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles - Motor Accident Claim - 20 year old son of
appellant died in an accident - Claims Tribunal (MACT) adopted
income of the deceased to be Rs.6,000/-p.m - It applied a multiplier
of 11 on the basis of the age of the parents of the deceased and
granted compensation of Rs.4,31,000/- - High Court declined to
interfere with the award of the Tribunal - On appeal, held: Tribunal
gave cogent reasons for declining claim of the appellant that
deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month - Correct multiplier
would be 17 based on the age of the deceased and an addition of
40% towards future prospects is also warranted - Loss of dependency
is Rs 8,56,800/- - Appellant also entitled to Rs.15,000/- for loss of
estate and a further Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses - Accordingly,
appellant granted total compensation of Rs 8,86,800/- with interest
@7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition before MACT till
realization.
The appellant no.1's son who was aged 20 years, died in an
accident after a truck dashed against his motor cycle. Appellant filed
claim before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT). The Tribunal
declined to accept the income certificates produced by the appellant in
support of his claim that his son had a monthly earning of Rs.15,000/-
and instead took the income to be Rs.8,000/-. Applying a multiplier of 11
on the basis of the age of the parents of the deceased, it granted
compensation of Rs.4,31,000/-. In appeal, the High Court declined to
interfere with the award of the Tribunal. Hence, the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Tribunal gave cogent reasons for declining
to accept the income certificates which were relied upon by the
father of the deceased. No witnesses were examined on behalf of
the companies which were alleged to have issued the certificates
[2018] 1 S.C.R. 283
283
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
284
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 1 S.C.R.
to prove the certificates. Evidently there was a failure to establish
that the deceased, who was a student pursuing his C.A. was in
receipt of a monthly income of Rs 15,000/-. Hence, the
assessment of income by the Tribunal cannot be faulted. [Para
6][286-C-D]
1.2 However, there is merit in the submission which has
been urged on behalf of the appellants that the Tribunal failed to
apply the correct multiplier and erred in not granting the benefit
of future prospects in computing the income of the deceased and
the loss of dependency. Having regard to the judgment delivered
by the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in the cases of Pranay
Sethi and Sarla Verma the correct multiplier should be 17 having
regard to the age of the deceased and an addition of 40 per cent
towards future prospects would also be warranted. On this basis
and since the deceased was a bachelor, the loss of dependency
would work out to Rs 8,56,800/-. The appellants would be entitled
to an amount of Rs 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs 15,000/
- towards funeral expenses. The award of compensation
accordingly stands quantified at Rs 8,86,800/-. The appellants
are allowed interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of the filing of the
petition before the M.A.C.T. till realization. [Para 7][286-D-G]
National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi
(2017) 13 SCALE 12; Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport
Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 21 : [2009] 5 SCR 1098 -
followed.
Case Law Reference
(2017) 13 SCALE 12
 followed
Para 7
 [2009] 5 SCR 1098
 followed
Para 7
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 448 of
2018.
From the Order dated 30.05.2016 of the High Court of Judicature
for Rajasthan at Jaipur in SBCM No. 3193 of 2013.
S. N. Gupta, Ayush Gupta and Arvind Kumar Gupta, Adv. for the
Appellants.
Mohan Babu Agarwal, Celeste Agarwal, Chetanya Siddarth,
Rakesh Kumar Gupta and Mukesh Kumar Sharma, Advs. for the
Respondents.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
285
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 1. The present appeal has
arisen from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at
its Jaipur bench confirming the award of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (M.A.C.T.).
2. An accident took place on 15 November 2008 when at about 9
p.m. Sonu Kumar Goyal was proceeding on a motor cycle from Mandi
Neem Ka Thana to his home. A truck bearing Registration No.RJ-32GA-0398 dashed against the motor cycle as a result of which Sonu
Kumar sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. The third
respondent is the registered owner of the motor vehicle which was insured
with the first respondent. The appellants filed a claim for compensation
before the Tribunal. By its order dated 16 July 2013 the Tribunal held
that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver of the
truck. The insurer was held jointly and severally liable together with the
owner and driver.
3. While assessing the claim of compensation, the Tribunal noted
that the deceased was a bachelor, aged 20 years. On the income of the
deceased, the Tribunal did not accept the certificates for the months of
August, September and October 2008 produced by the first appellant
who is the father of the deceased in support of the case that the deceased
had a monthly earning of Rs 15,000/-. The Tribunal indicated that the
certificates have not been duly proved. The deceased was pursuing the
professional Chartered Accountancy course. The Tribunal adopted an
income of Rs.6,000/- per month and since the deceased was a bachelor,
it deducted a sum of Rs 3,000/- per month towards personal expenses.
A multiplier of 11 was applied on the basis of the age of the parents of
the deceased. Accordingly, the loss of dependency was computed at Rs
3,96,000/- and after addition of conventional heads, a total compensation
of Rs.4,31,000/- was awarded.
4. The appellants as well as the insurer filed the appeals before
the High Court. By its judgment dated 30 May 2016 the High Court has
declined to interfere with the award of the Tribunal.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has
assailed the award of compensation by urging that:
(i) Both the Tribunal and the High Court erred in declining to
accept the income certificates produced to indicate that the
deceased had a monthly income of Rs 15,000/-;
(ii) No addition on account of future prospects was made;
SHRI NAGAR MAL v. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
286
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 1 S.C.R.
(iii) The multiplier to be adopted should have been based on the
age of the deceased and not on the age of the parents; and
(iv) interest should have been awarded @ 9% p.a. instead of 6%
p.a.
On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
insurer has supported the view which has been taken by the Tribunal
and by the High Court and submitted that no case has been made out for
interference by this court with the concurrent findings of both the courts
below.
6. The Tribunal has given cogent reasons for declining to accept
the income certificates which were relied upon by the father of the
deceased. No witnesses were examined on behalf of the companies
which were alleged to have issued the certificates to prove the certificates.
Evidently there was a failure to establish that the deceased, who was a
student pursuing his C.A. was in receipt of a monthly income of Rs
15,000/-. Hence, we are of the view that the assessment of income by
the Tribunal cannot be faulted.
7. However, we find merit in the submission which has been urged
on behalf of the appellants that the Tribunal failed to apply the correct
multiplier and erred in not granting the benefit of future prospects in
computing the income of the deceased and the loss of dependency.
Having due regard to the judgment delivered by the Constitution Bench
of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited v Pranay
Sethi1 and in Sarla Verma v Delhi Transport Corporation2 the correct
multiplier should be 17 having regard to the age of the deceased. An
addition of 40 per cent towards future prospects would also be warranted
in terms of the judgment of the Constitution Bench. On this basis and
since the deceased was a bachelor, the loss of dependency would work
out to Rs 8,56,800/-. The appellants would be entitled to an amount of
Rs 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs 15,000/- towards funeral
expenses. The award of compensation accordingly stands quantified at
Rs 8,86,800/-. The appellants are allowed interest @7.5% p.a. from the
date of the filing of the petition before the M.A.C.T. till realization.
8. The appeal is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as
to costs.
Divya Pandey
 Appeal allowed.
1 (2017) 13 SCALE 12
2 (2009) 6 SCC 121