MV Act - Multiplier Of Victims Upto The Age Group Of 15 Years Should Be Taken As '15' : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that, while computing motor accident compensation, the multiplier of victims upto the age group of 15 years should be taken as '15'.

There is certainly justification for selecting a lower multiplier of '15' in the case of victims belonging to the age group upto 15 years, the bench of Justices BR Gavai and CT Ravikumar observed.

In this case, the victim met with an accident when she was two year old. The Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal dismissed the claim for compensation on certain technical Grounds. Reversing the said order, the Madras High Court granted compensation of Rs. 13,34,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5 percent. In appeal before the Apex Court, the claimant sought enhancement of compensation by relying on the decision in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand (2020) 4 SCC 413 to claim enhancement/grant, of compensation under different heads.

The bench noted that in the said judgment , in respect to claimant belonging to the age group up to 15 years, the court had taken the multiplier as 18 and in this case the High Court had taken it is as 15. Referring to Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121, the bench observed:

In fact, in column No. 4 of the table in Sarla Verma's case the highest multiplier is '18' and it is shown applicable to two age groups; firstly, to the age group of 15 to 20 years and secondly, to the age group of 21 to 25 years. It is in the said circumstances, that as relates the age group up to 15 years the multiplier was selected as '18'.

Further, referring to Reshma Kumari & Ors. V. Madan Mohan (2013) 9 SCC 65, the bench observed: 

We are of the considered view that the selection of multiplier '15' for the age group upto 15 years by the three-Judge Bench in Reshma Kumari's case is having a sound basis. It is common knowledge that the age group of 21 to 25 years is regarded as the commencement of normal productive years as referred specifically by the two-Judge Bench in Sarla Verma's case at paragraph 39. True that in Sarla Verma's case the same multiplier viz., '18' is selected for the age group 15 to 20 years. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, which is an enactment to prohibit the engagement of children in all occupation and to prohibit the engagement of adolescence in hazardous occupations and process and matters connected therewith and incidental thereto In the said circumstances, when there is clear prohibition under an enactment for engagement of children and the definition of "child" under the said enactment takes in children who have not completed their fourteenth year of age within its fold, there is certainly justification for selecting a lower multiplier of '15' in the case of victims belonging to the age group upto 15 years. Since the Constitutional Bench in Pranay Sethi's case held Rajesh's case (supra) as not a binding precedent for not taking note of decision in Reshma Kumari's case, held that the formula relating to multiplier has been approved in Reshma Kumari's case after extracting the afore-extracted paragraph No. 43.1 and 43.2 in Reshma Kumari's case and that the three-Judge Bench in Reshma Kumari held that as regards the cases where the age of the victim happens to be upto 15 years the multiplier should be '15' we are bound to take the multiplier of victims upto the age group of 15 years as '15'."

The court therefore held that the High Court has rightly identified the multiplier by looking into the table in Sarla Verma's case as 15.  The bench disposed the appeals by modifying the High Court judgment by granting amount of Rs. 24,90,000/- in addition to amount already awarded by the High Court. 

Case details

Divya vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 892 |  CA 7605 of 2022 | 18 October 2022 | Justices BR Gavai and CT Ravikumar

Counsel: Adv T. Harish Kumar for appellant, Adv Abhishek Gola for respondent

Headnotes

Motor Accident Compensation Claims - Multiplier of victims upto the age group of 15 years should be taken as '15' - When there is clear prohibition under Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 for engagement of children and the definition of "child" therein takes in children who have not completed their fourteenth year of age within its fold, there is certainly justification for selecting a lower multiplier of '15' in the case of victims belonging to the age group upto 15 years. (Para 10.1.4)

Click here to Read/Download Judgment