SC: High Courts Exercising Probate Jurisdiction Can Order Probes Into Estate Irregularities  ||  SC: High Courts Exercising Probate Jurisdiction Can Order Probes Into Estate Irregularities  ||  Supreme Court Grants Bail to Undertrial Jailed For 9 Years, Citing Violation of Article 21 Rights  ||  Supreme Court: Appellate Courts Reversing Acquittal Must Themselves Hear Convicts on Sentence  ||  SC: Party Accepting Extension of Arbitrator’s Mandate Cannot Later Challenge Award on Expiry Grounds  ||  Supreme Court: Life Sentence Can Be Modified Into a Fixed-Term Sentence in Appropriate Cases  ||  Supreme Court Upholds EC Authority to Conduct SIR of Electoral Rolls For Free & Fair Elections  ||  Supreme Court Expresses Concern over NEET-UG 2026 Cancellation, Stating NTA Has Not Learned Lessons  ||  Supreme Court: Off-Duty Anaesthetist Cannot be Held Criminally Liable For Nurse’s Procedural Error  ||  Centre To Delhi HC: Eviction of Delhi Gymkhana Club Will be Carried Out After Due Notice under Law    

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Mandala Yadagari Goud and Ors. - (Supreme Court) (09 Apr 2019)

It is the age of deceased which has to be taken into account and not age of dependents while determining compensation

MANU/SC/0507/2019

Motor Vehicles

The only legal issue canvassed in present matters, which were 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. The Appellant 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.

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.

The judicial pronouncements of this Court have endeavoured to devise a standard formula, 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.

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. In case the deceased is a bachelor, a different principle for calculation of the multiplier should not be applied by shifting the focus to the age of the claimants. Once the law is settled, it should not be repeatedly changed as that itself causes confusion and litigation.

A reading of the judgment in Sube Singh 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.

There is no need to once again take up the issue settled by the judgments of three Judge Bench. It is the age of the deceased which has to be taken into account and not the age of the dependents. The appeal filed by the insurance company without merit. Appeals dismissed.

Relevant : Sube Singh and Anr. v. Shaym Singh (Dead) and Ors. MANU/SC/0106/2018, Reshma Kumari and Ors. v. Madan Mohan and Anr. MANU/SC/0287/2013

Tags : COMPENSATION   AGE   DECEASED  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved