Is the multiplier in a motor accident claim fixed by the age of the deceased or of the dependents?

The Civil Appeals arise from the Order dated 24.01.2019 in FAO Nos. 3607 and 5444 of 2017 (O&M) of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.

Civil Appeal No. 12085 of 2026 is at the instance of Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, and Civil Appeal No. 12086 of 2026 is at the instance of the Claimant.

On 10.04.2011 at around 05.30 P.M., an accident occurred near Brijghat Bridge between a motorcycle and a heavy goods vehicle bearing No. HR-55-2812. The motorcycle was driven by Sushant Prabhakaran, and Priyanka Das/Claimant was the pillion rider. The FIR narrates the accident, and the Chargesheet states that the heavy goods vehicle hit the motorcycle, causing the riders to fall, and the truck ran over Sushant Prabhakaran, resulting in his instantaneous death. The Claimant/pillion rider sustained grievous multiple injuries to vital parts of the body. FIR No. 198, dated 10.04.2011, was registered at Police Station Gadmukteshwar on the complaint received from passerby/third party Radhe Shyam Kaushik. The Civil Appeals are confined to the claim for compensation arising from the demise of Sushant Prabhakaran. At the time of his death, Late Sushant Prabhakaran was 33 years old and employed as Manager, Contact Centre, at Ericsson India Private Limited, DLF Cyber City, Gurugram. Sahadeov Prasad is the father, and Sandhya Prasad is the mother of the deceased. It was pleaded in the Claim Petition that the Claimant was the widow of Sushant Prabhakaran.

MACT Petition No. 9 of 2014 was filed by Priyanka Das, the injured pillion rider, claiming compensation of Rs. 5 crores, together with interest at 18% per annum. The parents of the deceased were arrayed as Proforma Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in MACT Petition No. 9 of 2014 before the Court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurugram (“The Tribunal”).

The Claimant, in support of the claim for Rs.5 crores in compensation, primarily relied on the evidence of Ajay Kumar Chadha, PW-11, and the salary slips of Sushant Prabhkar, marked as Exhibit PW-11/A, which evidenced the deceased’s income/salary at the time of the accident. The Tribunal, on 03.04.2017, awarded Rs.82,56,152/- and apportioned as follows: 1. Priyanka Das: Rs. 5,00,000/-. 2. Sahadeov Prasad: Rs. 50,000/- 3. Sandhya Prasad: Rs.77,06,152/-

On negligence and the cause of the accident, the Tribunal held that the determination of compensation before the Tribunal is summary in nature and that negligence is evaluated on the preponderance of probabilities, rather than the strict criminal standard of “proof beyond reasonable doubt”. PW-9, the injured pillion rider, has deposed to the circumstances leading to the accident. The manner in which the motorcycle was crushed beneath the truck’s tyres established that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck driver examined as RW-2. The Insurer’s defence that the terms of the Insurance Policy have been violated was rejected, inasmuch as the Insurer contended that the Vehicle No. HR-55-2812 did not have a valid fitness certificate. This contention is disbelieved upon appreciation of the contemporaneous Registration Certificate of the vehicle marked as Exhibit- R6. Consequently, the Tribunal fastened liability of Rs.82,56,152/- on the Insurer.

The Tribunal, in apportioning compensation, did not accept Priyanka Das’s claim that she was the legally wedded wife of Sushant Prabhakaran. There is no documentary evidence of the factum of their marriage. While rejecting her status as a legally wedded wife, the Tribunal appreciated Exhibits P-13 and P-14, i.e., employment records, in asserting the status she claimed as the wife of the deceased Sushant Prabhakaran. In the circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that Priyanka Das had listed the deceased, Sushant Prabhakaran, as her fiancé. The Tribunal considered Priyanka Das’s independent standing and recorded that she was not financially dependent on the deceased. As per Exhibit P-11/A, the deceased’s gross salary was Rs.10,65,600/- per annum, and after deduction, the salary was determined at Rs.8,94,100/-. The Tribunal, after adding 50 per cent towards future prospects and applying a deduction of 50 per cent, determined the annual pendency loss at Rs.6,70,575/-.

The age of the deceased was established as 33 years, and a multiplier of sixteen was applied. Accordingly, the total loss of dependency was determined to be Rs. 1,07,29,200/-. From the gross total of Rs. 1,08,54,200/, the amount received under the Personal Accidental Term Policy was deducted. Accordingly, the net compensation was determined to be Rs. 82,56,152/-.

The Insurer and the Claimant preferred FAO Nos. 3607 and 5444 of 2017 before the High Court. By the Impugned Judgment, the High Court made a minor modification to the apportionment of compensation, thereby increasing the compensation awarded to Priyanka Das from Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.7,50,000/-. The Insurer challenges the quantum of compensation awarded, and Priyanka Das challenges the apportionment of compensation by refusing to treat her as the legally wedded wife of the deceased Sushant Prabhakaran.

We have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.

The findings of fact by the Tribunal on Negligence are summed hereunder:- A. The MACT proceedings are summary in nature, and negligence is assessed on the “preponderance of probabilities” rather than the strict criminal standard of “proof beyond reasonable doubt”. B. Priyanka Das deposed as PW-9 and testified as an eyewitness to the accident. The insurer’s argument that she couldn't have accurately observed the truck driver’s negligence was rejected. C. It was held that the truck’s tyres were high enough to crush a motorcycle beneath them without leaving any body scratches. D. While being examined as RW-2, the truck driver admitted that he was on trial in an ongoing criminal case under FIR No. 198 and confirmed that his licence and truck were impounded at the scene. He further admitted that he had never filed a complaint with any Authority on the ground that he was falsely implicated.

Therefore, first, there is no serious challenge by the Insurer to these findings of fact, and second, from the binding precedents on the point, namely the registration of the FIR, the Chargesheet discharged the primary onus, thereby strengthening the case that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused in FIR No. 198. We are not referring to the precedents and will proceed to consider the next issue, namely the apportionment of compensation between Priyanka Das, on the one hand, and the parents of the deceased, Sushant Prabhakaran, on the other.

Further, it is argued on behalf of the Insurer that the multiplier applied in determining the compensation is erroneous. The compensation is awarded to the deceased's parents. Therefore, the multiplier ought to correspond to the age of the deceased's parents. The respondents argued that this argument is no longer res integra and that the binding precedents of this Court enable the Tribunal to consider the deceased's age when applying the multiplier. The MACT and the High Court rejected the Insurer’s argument, holding that the legal position has evolved and is now settled in favour of using the deceased’s age. The High Court relied on Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation,¹ which standardised the multiplier table, and subsequent Judgments began applying the deceased's age uniformly. Further, a Three-Judge Bench of this Court in Munna Lal Jain v. Vipin Kumar Sharma² held that the multiplier should depend on the deceased’s age and not on the dependents’ ages. Further, the High Court, while relying on Sube Singh v. Shyam Singh,³ clarified that the issue “is no more res integra”. This Court, in Sube Singh (supra), affirmed the Munna Lal Jain (supra) ruling that the multiplier must depend on the age of the deceased bachelor, not the parents.

To ensure consistent calculations across the country, this Court introduced a standardised multiplier matrix in Sarla Verma (supra). This matrix was validated by a Five-Judge Bench in Pranay Sethi.⁴ Addressing the specific legal question of which multiplier method would apply to the bachelors, a Three-Judge Bench of this Court in Munna Lal Jain (supra) held that the multiplier must be determined by the age of the deceased, not by the age of the dependents. This was later confirmed by a subsequent ruling of this Court in Sube Singh (supra), which held that this rule is no longer res integra. The deceased, Shushant Prabhakaran, was 33 years old at the time of the accident. According to the standardised matrix established in Sarla Verma (supra) and approved in Pranay Sethi (supra), the age bracket of 31 to 35 corresponds directly to a multiplier of 16. Therefore, the MACT and the High Court correctly applied a multiplier of 16 in determining the compensation.

Priyanka Das pursued the claim for compensation asserting a clear case that she is the wife of the deceased Sushant Prabhakaran. The burden of proof, even in a summary proceeding as the present one indisputably, is with Priyanka Das. The Tribunal and the High Court have appreciated the oral and documentary evidence pleaded to confirm the finding of fact that Priyanka Das was not his legally wedded wife. We are not reappreciating the evidence to record a different finding, nor to express our concurrence with the view taken by the Tribunal and the High Court. The above considerations take us to the other serious point argued by Mr Prashanto Chandra Sen, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for Priyanka Das. He argues that the Courts have rightly relied upon the precedent in the Manjuri Bera⁵ case but granted 5 per cent apportionment of the total compensation received on the demise of Sushant Prabhakaran. The claim of Priyanka Das for injuries is considered separately and determined by a judgment of even date. In matters such as the present, mathematical precision is not always sought or applied by the Courts and the Tribunals, but the claimants are awarded just and fair compensation and in the process, what is due is not denied; what is undeserving is not awarded. For the above reasons, the Impugned Judgment has followed the binding precedents, and therefore, does not warrant interference.

Civil Appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed.

Pending Application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. ..……….…………………J. [S.V.N. BHATTI] ...…………………………J. [N.V. ANJARIA] New Delhi; September 3, 2026.