A one-third personal-expense deduction is justified for a bachelor supporting a large dependent family.

Saddam, aged 24, died from injuries sustained when the motorcycle on which he was a pillion rider collided with a tractor and trailer.

His family alleged that the tractor driver caused the accident by driving negligently and turning right without a signal.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded ₹18,24,509.

The claimants appealed, seeking enhancement, including reassessment of the deceased’s income and deduction for personal expenses.

The High Court considered the deceased’s age, the absence of documentary proof of his asserted income of ₹25,000 per month, and the circumstances of his family, including his parents and two siblings.

1. Whether the claimants were entitled to enhancement of compensation, including a lower deduction for the deceased’s personal expenses and an addition for future prospects.

2. What compensation and consequential directions should be ordered.

Under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, an aggrieved party may appeal an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

For a deceased bachelor, a 50% deduction for personal and living expenses is ordinarily applied; however, where the family is large and dependent on the deceased’s income, the deduction may be restricted to one-third.

Pranay Sethi also provides for future prospects to be added to income; for a deceased below 40, the Court applied 40%.

The Court applied a multiplier of 18 for the deceased’s age, following Sarla Verma.

It also relied on Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and Pranay Sethi in awarding consortium to the surviving claimants and applying the 10% escalation to conventional heads.

Although the deceased was a bachelor, the Court found that he lived with and had family responsibilities towards his parents and two siblings, including an unmarried sister and brother at the time of his death.

Given the family’s dependence and the deceased’s circumstances, it held that a one-third deduction, rather than 50%, was appropriate.

Since the asserted income was not supported by evidence, the Court adopted the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority’s 2019 notional monthly income of ₹13,250.

It added 40% for future prospects, deducted one-third for personal expenses, and applied a multiplier of 18, resulting in ₹26,71,272 for loss of dependency and future prospects.

It further awarded ₹1,32,000 for consortium, ₹16,500 each for loss of estate and funeral expenses, and retained the Tribunal’s ₹3,20,509 award for medical expenses.

The total compensation was enhanced from ₹18,24,509 to ₹31,56,781, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition until realization.

The owner and insurer were held jointly and severally liable, and the insurer was directed to deposit the compensation with accrued interest within eight weeks of receiving the certified judgment.

The claimants were denied interest on the enhanced amount for the 196-day delay in filing the appeal; apportionment and disbursement were left as directed by the Tribunal.