Insurance Company Limited v/s Shyam Singh and Others (2011) 7 SCC 65 was required
to deal with a similar situation. It was a case where the aged parents were
the sole dependents of their young deceased son. It is in these
circumstances that the Apex Court was required to consider whether the
age of the deceased or the age of the dependent parents, would be
considered while applying the multiplier. The Apex Court after
considering the imponderable factors in the determination of
compensation and following Vijay Shankar Shinde and Others v/s State
of Maharashtra (2008) 2 SCC 670
held that the multiplier that would apply, would be one,
after taking into consideration the average age of the parents of the
deceased. Paras 9 and 10 reads thus:-
“9. This Court in Vijay Shankar Shinde and Others v/s State of
Maharashtra, after referring to the earlier judgments of this
Court, in detail, dealt with the law with regard to determination
of the multiplier in a similar situation as in the present case. The
said findings of this Court are as under:
"6. We have given anxious consideration to these
contentions and are of the opinion that the same are
devoid of any merits. Considering the law laid down in
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie, it is clear that the
choice of multiplier is determined by the age of the
deceased or claimants whichever is higher. Admittedly,
the age of the father was 55 years. The question of
mother's age never cropped up because that was not the
contention raised even before the Trial Court or before
us. Taking the age to be 55 years, in our opinion, the
courts below have not committed any illegality in
applying the multiplier of 8 since the father was running
56th year of his life.
7. The learned Counsel relying on the Second Schedule of
the Act contended that the deceased being about 16 or
17 years of age, a multiplier of 16 or 17 should have
been granted. It is undoubtedly true that Section 163A was
brought on the Statute book to shorten the period of
litigation. The burden to prove the negligence or 6 fault
on the part of driver and other allied burdens u/s 140 or
166 were really cumbersome and time consuming.
Therefore as a part of social justice, a system was
introduced via Section 163A wherein such burden was
avoided and thereby a speedy remedy was provided. The
relief u/s 163-A has been held not to be additional but
alternate. The Schedule provided has been threadbare
discussed in various pronouncements including Deepal
Girishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.AIR 2004
SC 2107. The Second Schedule is to be used not only
referring to age of victim but also other factors relevant
therefore. Complicated questions of facts and law
arising in accident cases cannot be answered all times
by relying on mathematical equations. In fact in U.P.
State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra (1996) 4
SCC 362, Ahmedi, J. (As the Chief Justice then was)
has pointed out the shortcomings in the said Schedule
and has held that the Schedule can only be used as a
guide. It was also held that the selection of multiplier
cannot in all cases be solely dependent on the age of
the deceased. If a young man is killed in the accident
leaving behind aged parents who may not survive
long enough to match with a high multiplier
provided by the Second Schedule, then the Court
has to offset such high multiplier and balance the
same with the short life expectancy of the claimants.
That precisely has happened in this case. Age of the
parents was held as a relevant factor in case of
minor's death in recent decision in Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Syed Ibrahim and Ors. AIR
2008 SC 103. In our considered opinion, the Courts
below rightly struck the said balance."
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO.724 OF 2015
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4357 OF 2014
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO.724 OF 2015
The New India Assurance Company Limited
v/s.
Ramrao Lala Borse
CORAM : A. S. OKA &
REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ.
Dated: : 23rd OCTOBER, 2015.
Citation: 2016(6) ALLMR 89
