D.Y. Chandrachud JUDGMENT
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.
1. The sole question to be answered in this appeal is: whether the High Court was right in applying multiplier 14 for determining compensation amount in a motor accident claim case in reference to the age of parents of the deceased whilst relying on the decision of this Court in Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi v. Ramkaran Ramchandra Sharma and Anr. MANU/SC/0873/2014 : 2015 (2) SCC 180?
2. Briefly stated, in a motor accident which occurred on 22.09.2009, Ajit Singh, who was at the relevant time 23 years of age died. His parents, who were in the age group of 40 to 45 years, filed a petition claiming compensation. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held that the established income of the deceased was around Rs. 4,200/- per month and after deduction of 50% as the deceased was unmarried, calculated the same as Rs. 2,100/- per month. Thereafter, it applied multiplier 15, taking the age of the "parents of the deceased" into consideration. This was challenged by the Appellants by way of an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, being FAO No. 330 of 2012 (O&M) which was partly allowed in relation to other heads of compensation. As regards multiplier applied for determination of loss of future income, the High Court held that multiplier 14 will be applicable. For that, the High Court relied on the decision of this Court of (Two Judge Bench) in Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi (supra). Resultantly, the Appellants have filed the present appeal, questioning the correctness of the conclusion so reached by the High Court.
3. According to the Appellants, the correct multiplier to be applied in the facts of the present case is 18, as the deceased was only 23 years of age on the date of accident. To buttress this submission, reliance is placed on the decision in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. MANU/SC/0606/2009 : 2009 (6) SCC 121. Reliance is also placed on the recent judgment of this Court (Three Judge Bench) in the case of Munna Lal Jain and Anr. v. Vipin Kumar Sharma and Ors. MANU/SC/0640/2015 : 2015 (6) SCC 347, which has restated the legal position that multiplier should depend on the age of the deceased and not on the age of the dependents.
4. On the basis of the finding recorded by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court, it is evident that the deceased was 23 years of age on the date of accident i.e. 22.09.2009. He was unmarried and his parents who filed the petition for compensation were in the age group of 40 to 45 years. The High Court, relying on the decision in the case of Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi (supra), held that multiplier 14 will be applicable in the present case, keeping in mind the age of the parents of the deceased. The legal position, however, is no more res integra. In the case of Munna Lal Jain (supra) decided by a three Judge Bench of this Court, it is held that multiplier should depend on the age of the deceased and not on the age of ........