Summary
The Supreme Court increased accident compensation to Rs. 61,90,000 by using multiplier 17 based on the deceased’s age of 29, rather than multiplier 7 based on his parents’ ages. The income accepted by the High Court remained the basis because the insurer’s separate challenge had already failed. The Court applied 50% future prospects and a 50% bachelor’s personal-expense deduction, with 9% interest from the claim petition and tribunal apportionment.
Issues
- Whether the multiplier should follow the young deceased’s age rather than his parents’ ages, with the accepted income left undisturbed.
Held
- The insurer’s separate special-leave challenge had been dismissed, so the income finding accepted by the High Court was not reopened at its behest in the parents’ appeal. The decision therefore used that established basis rather than independently creating a general entitlement to an assumed future permanent salary. (¶¶ 4, 5, 6, 7)
- The deceased’s age of 29 required multiplier 17 under Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi, rather than the multiplier 7 selected using parental ages. With 50% future prospects and 50% personal expenses, dependency was Rs. 61,20,000. (¶ 8)
- Conventional heads brought the total to Rs. 61,90,000, carrying 9% annual interest from the claim petition. Apportionment followed the tribunal award. (¶¶ 8, 9)
Result
Appeal allowed; compensation fixed at Rs. 61,90,000 with 9% annual interest from the claim petition and tribunal apportionment. No costs.