A Deceased Aged Over 60 Is Not Entitled to Future Prospects

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sepahijala District, awarded the claimants ₹13,22,200, with interest at 8% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition, for the death of the deceased in a motor accident.

The insurer appealed, challenging the deceased’s age, the addition for future prospects, the multiplier, and the assessment of her monthly income.

The Tribunal had relied on the deceased’s Aadhaar card to determine her age and assessed her monthly income at ₹12,000.

Whether the deceased’s age required the Tribunal’s award of 10% future prospects and multiplier 9 to be revised.

Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of the deceased’s monthly income at ₹12,000 was supported by the evidence.

What compensation the claimants were entitled to receive after recalculation.

Under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, an aggrieved party may appeal an award of the Claims Tribunal.

Applying National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, the Court held that future prospects are not added where the deceased was over 60; for the multiplier, it followed the age-based table in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, as referred to in Pranay Sethi, under which the multiplier for a person aged 61–65 is 7.

The Court also applied the conventional amounts for consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses, including the 10% enhancement it said had been awarded by the Tribunal pursuant to Pranay Sethi.

The Court accepted the Aadhaar card as the basis for determining age and concluded that the deceased was 64 at the time of the accident, rather than 55 as the Tribunal had found.

It therefore removed the 10% addition for future prospects and substituted multiplier 7 for multiplier 9.

It declined to disturb the monthly income assessment: although no income certificate had been produced, PW2’s evidence that the deceased worked under him and earned ₹15,000 per month was unimpeached, and the Tribunal had assessed income at ₹12,000 per month.

After deducting one-fourth for personal expenses, the Court calculated loss of income at ₹7,56,000 and added the conventional heads and the applicable enhancement, arriving at total compensation of ₹10,09,000.

The insurer was directed to deposit the amount with the Tribunal within two months, with any amount already paid to be deducted; the Tribunal’s other conditions remained unchanged.