A deceased retiree’s proven pension and post-retirement remuneration both count in assessing dependency loss.

On 28 November 2011, a car insured by the appellant struck and fatally injured Subramanian as he was crossing the road.

His dependants sought compensation, alleging that after retiring from Government service he worked in the Horticulture Department’s Accounts Department.

The Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs.20,000 and awarded Rs.11,39,972.

The insurer appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, disputing the income assessment and contending that income should have been limited to his monthly pension of Rs.12,350.

Whether the Tribunal was justified in fixing the deceased’s monthly income at Rs.20,000 for calculating compensation.

The Court applied the principle that income in a motor accident claim is assessed on the evidence available and may, in appropriate cases, involve reasonable estimation.

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act was the provision under which the appeal was brought.

The evidence included Exs. X1 and X2 and testimony from P.W.4, the Department’s Accountant, supporting that the deceased received Rs.10,000 per month as consolidated remuneration after retirement.

Together with his pension of Rs.12,350, his monthly receipts totalled Rs.22,350; the Tribunal nevertheless adopted the lower figure of Rs.20,000.

Given that evidence, the Court rejected the insurer’s contention that income should be confined to the pension.

It also noted that the Tribunal had made no addition for future prospects and had deducted one-third for personal expenses.

It dismissed the appeal, confirmed the award of Rs.11,39,972, and directed the insurer to deposit the award with accrued interest within six weeks of receiving a copy of the order; the claimants may withdraw their apportioned shares in accordance with law.