A deceased heavy-vehicle driver’s income may be assessed at ₹6,000 monthly absent cogent income evidence.

On 24 February 2008, Vishnubhai Vegad was driving a Tata Tempo from Ahmedabad to Bhavnagar when it collided from behind with a trailer allegedly parked on the highway at night without parking lights, reflectors, indicators, or radium strips. He sustained grievous injuries and subsequently died.

His legal representatives filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 230 of 2008. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhavnagar, awarded ₹6,67,600 with interest at 9% per annum.

The claimants challenged the award in the present appeal, confined to enhancement of compensation.

They contended that the deceased, a qualified heavy-vehicle driver, earned ₹6,000 per month, was entitled to future prospects, and had been awarded inadequate amounts under the conventional heads.

The insurer disputed the claimed income and supported assessment on the basis of minimum wages of ₹2,800 per month.

Whether the deceased’s monthly income should be reassessed at ₹6,000 instead of ₹2,800 for computing loss of dependency?

Whether 40% of the established income should be added towards future prospects, and whether the appropriate multiplier and deduction for personal expenses were correctly applicable?

Whether the compensation under loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium required enhancement in accordance with applicable Supreme Court precedents?

The Court applied the principles governing “just compensation” under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, including assessment of loss of dependency based on established or reasonably assessed income, addition of future prospects, deduction for personal expenses, and application of the age-based multiplier.

Relying on Minu Rout v. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra, (2013) 10 SCC 695, it held that the income of a driver may be assessed at ₹6,000 per month even in the absence of cogent documentary proof where the evidence and circumstances support that assessment.

Under National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, a 40% addition towards future prospects was applicable to a deceased aged about 30 years, and the conventional heads were to be suitably enhanced.

Under Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130, the widow, children, and parents were each entitled to compensation for loss of consortium.

The Court accepted that the deceased was working as a driver and noted that his driving licence authorised him to drive heavy vehicles.

Although documentary proof of income was absent, the claimants’ evidence, the pleaded salary and daily allowance, and the deceased’s qualification and occupation justified reassessment of monthly income at ₹6,000, following Minu Rout.

Since the deceased was approximately 30 years old, the Court added 40% towards future prospects, producing a monthly income of ₹8,400. As there were six legal representatives, one-fourth was deducted towards personal expenses, resulting in a monthly dependency contribution of ₹6,300.

Applying the multiplier of 17, the loss of dependency was calculated at ₹12,85,200.

Applying Pranay Sethi, loss of estate and funeral expenses were each enhanced to ₹18,150.

Applying Magma General Insurance, consortium of ₹48,400 was awarded to each of the six claimants, totalling ₹2,90,400.

After deducting the amount already awarded, the claimants were granted additional compensation of ₹9,44,300 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization.

Respondent No. 3, the concerned insurer, was directed to deposit the additional amount with interest within eight weeks, after which the Tribunal was to disburse it to the claimants subject to deduction of deficit court fees, if any, and due verification.