A 54-year-old deceased attracts 10% future prospects and a multiplier of 11.

The claimants, the deceased Raghupathi’s wife and daughter, sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, following his death in a collision between the two-wheeler on which he was travelling and a van on 14 April 2018

The Tribunal found the van driver negligent and awarded total compensation of ₹20,67,568, including ₹19,07,568 for loss of income, ₹80,000 for consortium and ₹50,000 for loss of love and affection

The insurer appealed against the quantum of compensation, disputing the deceased’s age, the future-prospects percentage, the multiplier, and the additional award for love and affection

Whether the Tribunal correctly assessed the deceased’s age, future prospects and multiplier in calculating loss of dependency.

Whether the Tribunal could award compensation for loss of love and affection in addition to loss of consortium.

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides the basis for a claim for compensation arising from a motor-vehicle accident.

Applying National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (2) TNMAC 758, the Court held that the future-prospects addition must reflect the deceased’s age; it applied 10% for the deceased, whom it found to be 54 years old.

The Court selected multiplier 11 and applied a one-third deduction for personal and living expenses.

It further held that, in this case, an award for loss of love and affection was not proper in addition to the consortium already awarded.

The driving licence showed that the deceased was 54, rather than 50 as the Tribunal had found; the Court therefore applied 10% future prospects and multiplier 11, while leaving the one-third deduction undisturbed.

On that basis, it calculated loss of dependency as ₹13,65,760 and retained ₹80,000 for consortium, ₹15,000 for funeral expenses and ₹15,000 for loss of estate, but set aside the ₹50,000 award for loss of love and affection.

The judgment’s recalculation uses a monthly notional income of ₹14,109, without explaining its difference from the ₹6,500 monthly income described as the Tribunal’s assessment.

The insurer was directed to deposit the modified amount, less any amount already deposited, within six weeks; the Tribunal’s apportionment was to remain unchanged, and the claimants could withdraw the amount in accordance with the Tribunal’s directions.