Summary
The deceased’s age determines the motor-accident multiplier even where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants were parents. The Supreme Court declined to reopen the settled rule or substitute the dependents’ ages. The principal insurer and claimant cross-appeals failed, while a connected claimant appeal succeeded through application of multiplier sixteen and the accompanying recalculation. The judgment’s outcomes therefore differed between the connected appeals.
Issues
- Whether a bachelor’s death required a multiplier based on dependents’ ages.
- Whether the principal claimants were entitled to further enhancement.
- What recalculation followed in the connected appeal.
Held
- Loss of dependency focuses on the deceased’s likely contribution. The settled rule applies the deceased’s age, without shifting to parents’ ages merely because the deceased was unmarried; certainty and uniformity supported adherence to the larger-Bench authorities. (¶ 9–14)
- The principal claimants already received a 50% future-prospects addition, exceeding what was asserted to be applicable there. Their request for further enhancement did not warrant interference. (¶¶ 5, 15–16)
- In the separate connected appeal, multiplier sixteen, a 50% future-prospects addition and 50% personal-expense deduction produced compensation of Rs 10,72,848, an enhancement of Rs 5,92,876, with interest at 9%. The grounds were broad enough to permit consideration of the multiplier. (¶ 18–19)
Result
Principal insurer and claimant cross-appeals, and Civil Appeal 1953/2019, dismissed. Civil Appeal 178/2017 allowed to enhance compensation to Rs 10,72,848, a difference of Rs 5,92,876, with 9% interest as directed. Pending applications disposed of.