Multiplier of 16 for Accident Victims Aged 30–35, Supreme Court Enhances Compensation to ₹20.55 Lakh

The Supreme Court recently emphasised that where the deceased falls in the age group of 30 to 35 years, a multiplier of 16 should ordinarily be applied. Applying this principle, court enhanced the compensation payable to the family of a stone crusher worker who died in a road accident in 2009.

A bench of Justices K Vinod Chandran and N V Anjaria granted a total compensation of Rs 20,55,320 to the family of the deceased. This was substantially higher than the Rs 7,28,500 awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the Rs 9,20,500 awarded later by the high court.

On September 2, 2009, one Sobran Singh was travelling from Jhansi to his home in Kot on his motorcycle. A Jeep Gypsy coming from the opposite direction, and allegedly being driven in a rash and negligent manner, collided with his motorcycle. Sobran Singh suffered serious injuries to his head and legs and succumbed to those injuries eight days after the accident.

He was 33 years old and was employed at Rajaram Stone Crusher. His family's case was that he earned Rs 6,000 per month from the stone crusher company. It was also claimed that he owned 3½ bighas of agricultural land and that 20 bighas had fallen to his share in a family partition, on which he carried out farming activities. According to Singh's family members (the claimants), this generated an additional income of Rs 10,000 per month.

His widow and other dependants sought a compensation of Rs 26,10,000. The tribunal, however, assessed his monthly income at Rs 4,500 and awarded compensation of Rs 7,28,500 with interest at six per cent from the date of filing of the claim petition. The high court later enhanced the compensation to Rs 9,20,500 with interest at seven per cent.

While considering the appeal, the Supreme Court noted that both the tribunal and the high court had rejected the salary certificate on the ground that it was not supported by independent evidence. However, the bench pointed out that there was no dispute that the salary certificate and the khatauni had been issued by the employer, the stone crusher company.

“It is reasonable to accept that the deceased was getting Rs 6,000 as monthly salary from the stone crusher company, for it is normal to expect that a person employed in this stone crusher unit would earn Rs 6,000 every month,” the bench observed.

On the claim of agricultural income, the court noted that the fact that the deceased worked on his family land and earned income from it was not specifically disputed. While there was no direct evidence on record regarding the exact amount of such income, the bench held that it was reasonable to presume some income from agricultural activity.

“Therefore, it is proper to grant an addition of Rs 2,000 towards income from farming activity for the purpose of assessing compensation. It could thus be concluded that the deceased had a total monthly income of Rs 8,000,” the bench said. 

Court further noted that the deceased was between 30 and 35 years of age. Relying on the principles laid down in National Insurance Company Limited vs Pranay Sethi & Others, it held that a multiplier of 16 was appropriate, as against the multiplier of 17 applied by the Tribunal and 15 applied by the high court.

The bench also found fault with the amounts awarded under the head of consortium. It noted that the Tribunal had granted only Rs 4,000 as a lump sum under non-pecuniary heads, while the high court enhanced it to Rs 70,000. According to the court, a proper amount under the head of consortium was required to be awarded.  

On this basis, the Supreme Court recalculated the compensation at Rs 20,55,320. It directed the insurance company to deposit the additional amount of Rs 11,34,820 along with interest at seven per cent within eight weeks before the Tribunal. The amount is to be disbursed among the seven claimants in the same proportion as directed earlier by the Tribunal.

Case Title: Rani @ Raj Kumari And Others Vs Kamlakat Gupta And Others

Bench: Justices K Vinod Chandran and N V Anjaria