A gainfully employed father is excluded from dependency counts, warranting a one-third deduction for personal expenses.

On 27 May 2016, a collision between a motorcycle and a truck resulted in the death of the motorcycle’s driver, an Assistant Engineer aged 32.

His wife, daughter, and parents filed a claim petition.

The Tribunal found the truck driver solely negligent and awarded compensation of Rs. 1,04,98,672, after deducting income tax from the deceased’s monthly income.

The insurer appealed, challenging the treatment of the deceased’s father as a dependent, the deduction for personal expenses, and the income calculation.

The claimants also appealed, supporting the Tribunal’s assessment of income and compensation.

1. Whether the Tribunal’s finding that the truck driver was solely negligent warranted interference.

2. Whether the deceased’s father was a dependent and, consequently, whether the deduction for personal expenses should be one-fourth or one-third.

3. Whether the deceased’s income, future prospects, multiplier, and conventional heads of compensation were correctly assessed.

In Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 5 SCC 656, the filing of a charge-sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle was treated as prima facie proof of negligence.

Under National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, AIR 2017 SC 5157, a deceased with permanent employment is entitled to future prospects, and the applicable addition for a person below 40 years is 50%; the decision also governs conventional heads of compensation.

The Court also relied on Reena v. Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, 2026 (0) AIJEL-SC 77486, in assessing consortium and related conventional sums.

The Court upheld the finding of sole negligence because a charge-sheet had been filed against the truck driver, which constituted prima facie evidence under Mangla Ram.

It found that the deceased’s father was gainfully employed and therefore excluded him as a dependent; with three eligible dependents, the appropriate deduction for personal expenses was one-third.

The Court assessed the deceased’s net monthly income, after income tax and professional tax, at Rs. 48,661, added 50% for future prospects, applied a multiplier of 17, and calculated future income loss at Rs. 99,26,844.

It then added compensation for consortium, filial consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses in accordance with the cited authorities.

The insurer was directed to deposit the modified compensation with 9% interest within eight weeks, after adjusting amounts already deposited; any excess deposit was to be refunded.

The cross-objection was dismissed, and the amount was directed to be disbursed to the claimants in accordance with the Tribunal’s apportionment directions.