Case Title : Giasi Ram and another versus ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co and others
Summary
The Supreme Court has ruled that the multiplier should be calculated according to the age of the deceased, not the age of the dependents, in cases of a bachelor’s demise. The High Court initially reduced the amount of compensation owed to the appellants, who had their son die in a motorbike accident. The Supreme Court argued that the High Court failed to consider the five-judge bench decision in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, which entitled the claimants to improved future prospects. The court reinstated the High Court’s order, stating that the multiplier should be 18. The appellant will be eligible for 40% of the base monthly salary of 4,107/-.
About the case
The Supreme Court ruled that in the event of a bachelor’s demise, the multiplier should be calculated according to the age of the deceased rather than the age of the dependents. A panel of judges, including Justices Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia, issued the directive. The subject under consideration pertained to a ruling by the High Court that reduced the amount of compensation owed to the appellants, who were the claimants whose son had died after sustaining fatal injuries in a motorbike accident. Initially, the tribunal calculated the amount of Rs. 3,683 per month and issued a compensation order based on that amount, concluding that the applicable multiplier was 18.
In contrast to the tribunal’s order, the insurer filed a petition with the High Court, which, in its challenged judgment, reduced the multiplier to nine in consideration of the surviving mother’s age as the dependent of the deceased. In opposition to this ruling, the appellant-claimants filed a petition with the Supreme Court. There was an argument that the High Court failed to consider the five-judge bench decision of this Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, which also entitled the claimants to improved future prospects, when determining the amount of compensation.
Regarding the multiplier in the case of a bachelor’s demise, the court determined that the age of the deceased, and not that of the dependents, should serve as the foundation. Furthermore, the court rendered the opinion that the High Court erred when it declined to increase compensation on the basis of future prospects. The order stated: “In light of the appellant’s employment in the informal sector, 40% of the determined compensation would be the appropriate standard.”
As a result, this is to instruct that the supplementary remuneration in consideration of future prospects be calculated at 40% of the base amount, or ₹4,107/- monthly. The aforementioned discourse leads to the vacating of the High Court’s impugned order. In regard to the multiplier, the Tribunal’s order is hereby reinstated; it shall be 18. With regard to the matter of supplementary compensation due to prospective developments, the appellant shall be eligible for 40% of the base monthly salary of 4,107/- in that regard. In accordance with the Tribunal’s order, the remaining payment instructions, including interest, remain unaltered.
