A one-third personal-expense deduction was upheld despite the deceased’s major, married children.

On 5 September 2018, Umapathy C. was riding a scooter when a lorry allegedly driven rashly and negligently hit him. He sustained fatal injuries and was declared brought dead at hospital.

His wife and children sought compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which awarded ₹13,98,392 with interest at 6% per annum.

The claimants appealed for enhancement, arguing that the Tribunal undervalued the deceased’s agricultural income and that the interest rate should be increased. The insurer appealed, seeking a 50% deduction for the deceased’s personal expenses because two claimants were major and married, and contending that the widow’s family pension should be deducted.

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in limiting the deceased’s agricultural income to ₹4,500, rather than accepting the claimants’ asserted annual agricultural income of ₹2,50,000.

2. Whether the Tribunal should have deducted 50%, rather than one-third, of the deceased’s income towards personal expenses because two claimants were major and married.

3. Whether the compensation award otherwise required modification, including on the grounds raised concerning family pension and interest.

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

The Court relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Birender, (2020) 11 SCC 356, for the principle that major, married and earning children may qualify as legal representatives entitled to apply for compensation, whether or not fully dependent on the deceased.

The Court held that the Tribunal’s one-third deduction for personal expenses did not warrant interference.

In addressing the insurer’s argument based on the claimants’ status as major and married children, it relied on Birender and concluded that the Tribunal’s deduction was proper.

On agricultural income, the Court found insufficient justification for the claimants’ assertion of annual income of ₹2,50,000 and upheld the Tribunal’s assessment of ₹4,500. It made no further changes to the award under the other heads.

It made no order as to costs and directed the Registry to transmit the record and any statutory deposits to the Tribunal, which was directed to release the amount in accordance with the award.