A deceased’s father is treated as financially dependent for motor accident compensation purposes.

Shaukat died in a motor-vehicle accident on 02.02.2000 due to the rash and negligent driving of Jeep No. DL-2C-G-9755 by respondent No.1.

The vehicle was owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3.

The deceased’s father, wife and two minor children instituted a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; the claim relating to a child in utero was treated as no longer surviving after that child’s subsequent death.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon, awarded ₹2,35,000 with interest at 9% per annum, holding respondents jointly and severally liable.

The claimants appealed, contending that the deceased’s income, future prospects, multiplier and conventional compensation had been assessed inadequately.

Whether the compensation awarded under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was inadequate and required enhancement on account of reassessment of income, future prospects, deduction for personal expenses and multiplier.

Whether the claimants were entitled to additional compensation under the conventional heads of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses, including filial and parental consortium.

Whether the father of the deceased was to be treated as a financially dependent claimant for determining the appropriate deduction towards personal expenses.

The Court applied Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, under which the Tribunal and appellate court must award “just compensation.”

Relying on Syed Basheer Ahamed v. Mohd. Jameel, the Court held that compensation must be based on established principles and reasonable data, and must neither be arbitrary nor a source of profit or windfall.

Under Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, the appropriate multiplier for a deceased aged 25 years is 18 and, where there are four dependants, one-fourth of the income is deductible towards personal expenses.

Under National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, a 40% addition is permissible towards future prospects for a deceased below 40 years of age, and compensation is awardable under the conventional heads of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses.

Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur recognise compensation for filial and parental consortium payable to the deceased’s parents and children.

Relying on Sadhana Tomar v. Ashok Kushwaha, the Court treated the deceased’s father as financially dependent upon his deceased son.

The Court further applied the principle that absence of documentary proof of income is not fatal where credible oral evidence exists, particularly in cases involving workers in the unorganised sector; income may be reasonably assessed on a preponderance of probabilities.

The Court accepted the uncontroverted evidence that the deceased was a tailor, rejecting the Tribunal’s treatment of him merely as an unskilled labourer.

Considering the deceased’s occupation and the 2000 accident date, it reasonably assessed his monthly income at ₹3,000.

Since he was 25 years old, 40% was added for future prospects, bringing the monthly income to ₹4,200.

Treating the father as a dependent and recognising four dependants in total, the Court deducted one-fourth, leaving a monthly dependency loss of ₹3,150 and an annual loss of ₹37,800.

Applying the multiplier of 18 resulted in a loss of dependency of ₹6,80,400.

The Court further awarded the wife ₹70,000 under consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses, and ₹40,000 each to the father and two children for filial and parental consortium, making the total compensation ₹8,70,400.

The previously determined negligence and joint and several liability of the driver, owner and insurer remained undisturbed.

The total compensation was enhanced from ₹2,35,000 to ₹8,70,400, resulting in an enhanced amount of ₹6,35,400, payable by respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally with interest at 9% per annum from 18.05.2000, the date of filing of the claim petition, until realization.

Out of the enhanced compensation, ₹1,00,000 each with proportionate interest was directed to be paid to the father and the two children, with the balance payable to the wife.

As the father died during the pendency of the appeal, his share and proportionate interest were directed to be paid to his impleaded legal representatives.

The Registry was also directed to email the authenticated judgment to the insurer for compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. v. Union of India.