M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE v. MANDALA YADAGARI GOUD & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
The result is that both the appeals are dismissed leaving the
Provisions considered
Judgment
#2. The focus for determination of such claim is the deceased and what would be his contribution towards the dependents would he to be alive, for the benefits of the dependents. It is trite to say, and in fact conceded by the learned counsel for the insurance company, that in case the deceased is a married person, it is the age of the deceased which is to be taken into account. The question is whether in case the deceased is a bachelor, a different principle for calculation of the multiplier should be applied by shifting the focus to the age of the claimants? This Court is of the view that the answer to this question should be in the negative. [Para 9][946-F-G]
#3. A reading of the judgment in Sube Singh & Anr. v. Shaym Singh (Dead) & Ors. shows that where a three Judge Bench has categorically taken the view that it is the age of the deceased and not the age of the parents that would be the factor for the purposes of taking the multiplier to be applied. This judgment undoubtedly relied upon the case of Munna Lal Jain & Anr. v. Vipin Kumar Sharma & Ors. which is also a three Judge Bench judgment in this behalf. The relevant portion of the judgment has also been extracted. Once again the extracted portion in turn refers to the judgment of a three Judge Bench in Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr. The relevant portion of Reshma Kumari in turn has referred to Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. and given its imprimatur to the same. The loss of dependency is thus stated to be based on : (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. It is the third aspect which is of significance and Reshma Kumari categorically states that it does not want to revisit the law settled in Sarla Verma case in this behalf. [Para 11][947-A-D] Sube Singh & Anr. v. Shaym Singh (Dead) & Ors. [2018] 1 SCR 636; : (2018) 3 SCC 18 B C D E F G H M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD v. MANDALA YADAGARI GOUD 943
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The result is that both the appeals are dismissed leaving the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India; Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 140.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.