A bachelor supporting a large dependent family may be subject to a one-third personal-expense deduction.

The deceased, a 20-year-old bachelor, died when his motorcycle collided with two cars on 1 January 2018.

His father, mother and siblings sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Tribunal held the drivers of both cars equally negligent and awarded ₹18,21,600, with 50% liability attributed to each vehicle.

The insurer of one car appealed, disputing its insured driver’s negligence.

The claimants sought reassessment of the deceased’s personal-expense deduction.

Whether the Tribunal erred in attributing 50% of the negligence to the vehicle insured by the appellant.

Whether the claimants were entitled to enhanced compensation despite not filing an appeal.

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides the basis for a claim for compensation arising from a motor accident, while Section 173 provides for an appeal against a Tribunal’s award.

Applying Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, as discussed in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, the Court stated that a one-third deduction for a bachelor’s personal expenses may be appropriate where a large family is dependent on the deceased’s income.

Under National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, future prospects are added to income according to the deceased’s age and employment category, and conventional heads are subject to the prescribed enhancement.

The Court also applied Magma General Insurance in awarding consortium to the claimants.

The complaint and the investigation record, including the charge sheet against both drivers, supported the finding that both cars were driven rashly while overtaking and contributed to the collision.

The Court therefore found no basis to disturb the Tribunal’s equal apportionment of negligence.

On compensation, it held that a one-third personal-expense deduction was appropriate given the deceased’s large family, and reassessed his monthly income at ₹11,750, adding 40% for future prospects and applying a multiplier of 18.

It then awarded consortium to all seven claimants and recalculated the conventional heads.

It dismissed the insurer’s appeal but modified the award, increasing compensation from ₹18,21,600 to ₹27,09,800, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition until realisation.

Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 were held jointly and severally liable, and the insurers were directed to deposit the compensation with accrued interest within eight weeks.