A new defence not pleaded before the Claims Tribunal cannot be raised for the first time in appeal.

On 11 March 2009, Sushil Thakur, aged approximately 20 years, was riding his motorcycle towards Paonta Sahib when, near Village Bohlion, two vehicles—Car No. DL-4CM-2604 and Vehicle No. CH-04B-8472—allegedly approached from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner. The latter vehicle collided with the deceased’s motorcycle, causing fatal injuries.

His legal representatives filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming ₹10,00,000, asserting that the deceased was a mason earning ₹5,000 per month.

The owners, drivers and insurers disputed negligence, involvement of the vehicles, the deceased’s income, and the validity of the drivers’ licences and insurance coverage.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal partly allowed the claim and awarded ₹4,67,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum, directing the appellant-insurer to satisfy the award.

The insurance company appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

In appeal, it additionally contended that the deceased was under the influence of liquor and was himself responsible for the accident.

Whether the appellant-insurance company could raise, for the first time in appeal, the contention that the deceased was driving under the influence of liquor and was solely responsible for the accident?

Whether the Tribunal correctly assessed the deceased’s monthly income at ₹3,000 in the absence of documentary proof?

Whether the addition towards future prospects should be 40% rather than 50%, since the deceased was self-employed and below 40 years of age?

Whether the multiplier had to be determined with reference to the age of the deceased rather than the age of the claimants?

What amount of just compensation, including compensation under the conventional heads and filial consortium, was payable to the claimant?

The Court applied Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, governing claims for compensation arising from motor-vehicle accidents, and Section 173 concerning appeals against awards of the Claims Tribunal.

It relied on Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh, (2008) 7 SCC 305, and Modern Insulators Ltd. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2000) 2 SCC 734, for the principle that a new factual or legal ground ordinarily cannot be raised for the first time in appeal when it was not pleaded or adjudicated before the Tribunal.

Under Chandra v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav, (2022) 1 SCC 198, minimum wages may serve as a yardstick for assessing income but are not an inflexible basis, and reasonable estimation is permissible where documentary evidence is unavailable.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, requires 40% addition for future prospects where a self-employed deceased below 40 years is concerned, and mandates that the deceased’s age be used for selecting the multiplier.

Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, prescribes a 50% deduction towards personal and living expenses in the case of a bachelor, subject to the facts of the case, and a multiplier of 18 for the relevant age group.

Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130, recognizes filial consortium as compensation payable to parents for the loss of their child’s love, affection, care and companionship.

Relying on Sunita v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1464, the Court enhanced the conventional heads by 10% every three years from 2017.

The Court rejected the drunken-driving contention because the appellant had not pleaded that defence before the Tribunal; permitting it for the first time in appeal would violate the settled rule against introducing new factual grounds at the appellate stage.

Although the claimants produced no documentary proof of income, the Court held that the absence of such proof did not require adoption of the lowest minimum-wage figure. Considering the deceased’s avocation as a mason and the circumstances of the accident, it upheld the Tribunal’s notional income of ₹3,000 per month.

Since the deceased was self-employed and approximately 20 years old, the Court substituted the legally applicable 40% addition for future prospects for the Tribunal’s erroneous 50% addition.

As the deceased was a bachelor, 50% was deducted towards personal expenses, and multiplier 18 was applied based on his age, rather than the claimants’ ages.

The resulting loss of dependency was ₹4,53,600. Applying the updated conventional amounts, the Court awarded ₹19,965 for funeral expenses, ₹19,965 for loss of estate and ₹53,240 for filial consortium.

The claimant was held entitled to a total compensation of ₹5,46,770, comprising ₹4,53,600 for loss of dependency, ₹19,965 for funeral expenses, ₹19,965 for loss of estate and ₹53,240 for filial consortium.

The Court maintained the interest rate of 7.5% per annum and did not disturb the remaining terms of the Tribunal’s award, including the direction concerning payment by the appellant-insurer.