Compassionate appointment benefits cannot be deducted from motor accident compensation.

The deceased, a 28-year-old constable earning a monthly salary of ₹14,671, died from injuries sustained when a truck struck the motorcycle on which he was travelling to duty.

His widow, two children and parents sought compensation.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal found the truck driver negligent and awarded ₹18,10,000, applying a multiplier of 18, deducting one-third for personal expenses, and making the award interest-free if paid within two months.

The claimants appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, challenging the compensation calculation and the conditional interest order.

1. Whether the Tribunal correctly assessed the deceased’s income, including allowances and any income-tax deduction, and applied the appropriate multiplier and deduction for personal expenses

2. Whether the claimants were entitled to future prospects and whether the widow’s compassionate appointment affected the compensation calculation

3. Whether the award should include compensation under the conventional heads and interest from the date of filing the claim petition

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for an appeal against a MACT award.

Under Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, the multiplier is selected by reference to the deceased’s age, and the personal-expense deduction depends on the number of dependants; for a deceased aged 26–30 the multiplier is 17, and with four to six dependants the deduction is one-fourth.

For a person in permanent employment who was under 40, Sarla Verma and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi provide for a 50% addition for future prospects; Pranay Sethi also identifies the conventional heads of loss of estate, consortium and funeral expenses.

Allowances form part of income for calculating dependency under Manorama Sinha v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Income tax is deductible from income, as recognised in Ranjana Prakash v. Divisional Manager.

Compassionate appointment is not a pecuniary advantage deductible from motor-accident compensation under Vimal Kanwar v. Kishore Dan and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rekhaben.

Consortium may be awarded to eligible family members, not only a spouse, under the authorities discussed by the Court, including Somwati and Neelam v. Ganga Singh.

The Court accepted that the deceased’s salary was ₹14,671 per month, including allowances, because the salary slip supported that figure and the insurer had not established that the allowances should be excluded.

It deducted ₹1,605 in income tax from annual income of ₹1,76,052, then added 50% for future prospects.

Given the deceased’s age and five dependants, it applied a multiplier of 17 and a one-fourth deduction for personal expenses.

The widow’s compassionate appointment did not reduce the award.

The Court also found that the Tribunal’s award did not properly provide for the conventional heads and that conditional interest was unwarranted.

The Court recalculated compensation at ₹35,66,299, comprising ₹33,36,299 for loss of dependency, ₹2,00,000 for consortium, ₹15,000 for funeral expenses and ₹15,000 for loss of estate.

The insurer was directed to pay that amount, less sums already paid, with interest at 7% per annum from the date the claim petition was filed, within two months.

The award was apportioned 50% to the widow, 25% to the children collectively and 25% to the parents collectively.