Agency Records Named His Mother As Proprietor: Madras HC Raises Family’s Accident Compensation To Rs 30.35 Lakh

The appellants—the deceased’s wife and two minor sons—appealed against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s award in M.C.O.P. No. 2916 of 2016, seeking enhancement of compensation for his death in a motorcycle collision on 11 March 2016.

The Tribunal found the first respondent negligent, assessed the deceased’s monthly income at ₹13,000, and awarded ₹25,57,000.

It also directed the insurer to pay first and recover from the first respondent because he had no valid driving licence.

The deceased’s mother, the fifth claimant before the Tribunal, was the third respondent in the appeal; his father died while the claim petition was pending.

The appellants relied on evidence concerning the deceased’s alleged business income, but the business records identified his mother, not the deceased, as proprietor.

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, provides for an appeal against an award of the Claims Tribunal.

For calculating dependency compensation, the Court applied National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, adding 40% of the deceased’s income for future prospects, and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, applying a one-fourth deduction for personal expenses and a multiplier of 15 based on the deceased’s age of 39.

The Court also applied the pay-and-recover direction where the offending vehicle’s rider lacked a valid driving licence, leaving the insurer to recover the amount paid from that rider.

The Court declined to accept the claimed monthly income of ₹50,000 because the business records named the deceased’s mother as proprietor, undermining the claim that the deceased owned the business and earned that amount.

However, having regard to the accident date and the deceased’s age, it increased the monthly income from ₹13,000 to ₹15,000.

Applying 40% future prospects, a one-fourth deduction for personal expenses, and a multiplier of 15, it assessed loss of income at ₹28,35,000.

It removed the wife’s separate award for loss of love and affection because she had received consortium, increased that head for the two sons and the deceased’s mother, and enhanced funeral expenses while adding loss of estate.

The absence of a valid driving licence had been proved through the RTO witness, so the Court left the pay-and-recover direction undisturbed.

The insurer was directed to deposit the amount, less any sum already deposited, within six weeks and may recover it from the first respondent.

Disbursement and apportionment remain subject to the Tribunal’s directions; the appellants must pay any court fee due on the enhanced compensation.

No costs were ordered.