What will be appropriate multiplier in MACT case if deceased victim is aged 26 to 30 years?

The remaining question is only on multiplier. The High Court
following Santosh Devi (supra), has taken 13 as the multiplier.
Whether the multiplier should depend on the age of the dependants
or that of the deceased, has been hanging fire for sometime; but
that has been given a quietus by another three-Judge Bench
decision in Reshma Kumari (supra). It was held that the multiplier
is to be used with reference to the age of the deceased. One reason

appears to be that there is certainty with regard to the age of the
deceased but as far as that of dependants is concerned, there will
always be room for dispute as to whether the age of the eldest or
youngest or even the average, etc., is to be taken. To quote:
“36. In Sarla Verma, this Court has
endeavoured to simplify the otherwise complex
exercise of assessment of loss of dependency and
determination of compensation in a claim made
under Section 166. It has been rightly stated in Sarla
Verma that the claimants in case of death claim for
the purposes of compensation must establish (a) age
of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and (c)
the number of dependants. To arrive at the loss of
dependency, the Tribunal must consider (i)
additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the
income; (ii) the deductions to be made towards the
personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii)
the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age
of the deceased. We do not think it is necessary for
us to revisit the law on the point as we are in full
agreement with the view in Sarla Verma.”
13. In Sarla Verma (supra), at paragraph-19, a two-Judge
Bench dealt with this aspect in Step 2. To quote:
“19. xxxxxx xxx
Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier)
Having regard to the age of the deceased and
period of active career, the appropriate multiplier
should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining
the number of years he would have lived or worked
but for the accident. Having regard to several
imponderables in life and economic factors, a table
of multipliers with reference to the age has been
identified by this Court. The multiplier should be
chosen from the said table with reference to the age

of the deceased.”

The multiplier, in the case of the age of the deceased

between 26 to 30 years is 17.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4497 OF 2015
(Arising from S.L.P. (C) No. 8362/2013)
Munna Lal Jain and another … Appellant (s)
Versus
Vipin Kumar Sharma and others … Respondent (s)
Citation;(2015)6SCC347
KURIAN, J.:

Print Page

Whether court can deviate from following multiplier method to award just compensation to victim in case of electrocution?

The learned Single Judge of the High Court has awarded compensation keeping all these aspects of the matter and has applied the guiding principle of multiplier method after adverting to the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr[6]. for the purpose of computation of just and reasonable compensation in favour of the appellant which method should not have been applied to the case on hand, particularly, having regard to the statutory negligence on the part of the respondents in not providing the safety measures to see that live electric wires should not fall on the roof of the building by strictly following the Rules to protect the lives of the public in the residential area. This Court in the case of Dr. Balram Prasad v. Kunal Saha[7], has deviated from following the multiplier method to award just and reasonable compensation in favour of the claimant in a medical negligence case. The same principle will hold good in the case on hand too. 

Supreme Court of India

Raman vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam ... on 17 December, 2014

Bench: V. Gopala Gowda, C. Nagappan

Print Page