A married deceased’s dependency compensation requires a one-third personal-expense deduction and 10% future prospects.

The appellant, daughter of the deceased Kallawwa, sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for her mother’s death after a KSRTC bus ran over her on 17 October 2018

The Tribunal awarded Rs. 7,52,000, including Rs. 6,34,500 for loss of dependency, based on a notional monthly income of Rs. 11,750, a 50% deduction for personal expenses and multiplier 9

The claimant appealed under Section 173(1), seeking enhancement, including on account of future prospects, the deduction for personal expenses, and consortium

Whether the claimant was entitled to enhanced compensation, including revised loss of dependency and amounts for future prospects and consortium

The claim was brought under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the appeal under Section 173(1) of that Act

For calculating loss of dependency, the Court applied the multiplier corresponding to the deceased’s age under Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, which it identified as supporting multiplier 9 for the relevant age group

It accepted the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority chart as the basis for assessing notional income where the deceased had no established permanent employment or proved income

The Court also applied a 10% addition for future prospects, a one-third deduction for personal and living expenses, and awarded Rs. 40,000 for consortium

The Court upheld the Tribunal’s notional monthly income of Rs. 11,750 and multiplier 9, finding no evidence to establish a higher actual income

It found that the Tribunal had deducted too much for personal expenses and held that a one-third deduction was appropriate; it also added 10% for future prospects, which the Tribunal had omitted

The Court further awarded Rs. 40,000 for consortium and retained the medical expenses award.

It treated the funeral expenses and loss of estate together as just and proper at Rs. 30,000

The compensation table sets the revised total at Rs. 10,87,867, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition until realization; the Tribunal’s apportionment, deposit and release directions were maintained, and the respondent was directed to deposit the amount within eight weeks

The judgment contains an apparent inconsistency: paragraph 20 states Rs. 10,47,867, while the compensation table and operative order state Rs. 10,87,867; the order also incorrectly describes Rs. 10,47,867 as the Tribunal’s award, although the Tribunal’s award is stated as Rs. 7,52,000