A 50% agricultural-expense deduction is arbitrary absent supporting evidence.

On 19 June 2017, the deceased, Sathish, was riding a motorcycle when it was struck by a Tata 709 vehicle. He later died from his injuries.

His wife, two minor children and mother filed a claim petition before the MACT, which awarded compensation of ₹42,15,360, including medical expenses and loss of dependency.

The claimants appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement.

The appeal was brought under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Court applied the compensation-assessment principles reflected in its calculation: it assessed the deceased’s contribution from the stated income after deducting 25% for agricultural expenses, added 40% for future prospects, applied a multiplier of 15 and deducted one-fourth for personal expenses.

It also recalculated consortium at ₹48,400 for each of four claimants.

The judgment cites no specific precedent or further statutory provision for these calculations.

The Tribunal had deducted 50% of the deceased’s income towards agricultural expenses, but the High Court found no supporting evidence for that deduction.

Considering the nature of the agricultural work and the comparatively lower cost of growing tobacco, it held that a 25% deduction was appropriate.

Applying that deduction to the assessed income of ₹24,034, and then adding 40% for future prospects, applying the multiplier of 15 and deducting one-fourth for personal expenses, the Court recalculated loss of dependency at ₹34,06,820.

It also increased consortium to ₹1,93,600; the other awarded heads, including medical expenses, remained unchanged.

The total compensation was enhanced from ₹42,15,360 to ₹53,87,780, an increase of ₹11,72,420.

The enhanced amount carries interest at 6% per annum from the date of the appeal until realisation, and the Insurance Company was directed to deposit it within six weeks of receiving the certified copy of the judgment.