Compensation award upheld where the Tribunal properly assessed the deceased’s net salary after deductions.

Rajesh Chandra, aged 48 years, died on 14 September 2016 when the Max vehicle bearing registration no. UK-10-TA-0086, in which he was travelling, fell into a gorge near Village Dolsi on the Nagun–Bhavan Road due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver.

His widow and children filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Uttarkashi.

The deceased was employed as a Surveillance Inspector (Malaria) in the Health Department and was earning a monthly salary of ₹54,305.

The Tribunal found that the accident resulted from the driver’s rash and negligent driving, that the vehicle was insured with Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., and that the driver possessed a valid licence.

After making deductions from the salary, the Tribunal assessed the deceased’s monthly income at ₹45,105 and annual income at ₹5,41,260, awarding total compensation of ₹56,44,104 with interest at 6% per annum.

The insurer challenged the award under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, principally contending that the deceased’s income had been improperly assessed and that the compensation was excessive.

Whether the Tribunal properly considered and assessed the deceased’s income while determining the compensation payable to the claimants?

The appeal was governed by Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which permits an aggrieved party to challenge an award of a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

The claim itself arose under Section 166 of the Act, under which compensation may be claimed for death caused by a motor vehicle accident.

In assessing compensation, the Tribunal was required to determine the deceased’s proven income, make appropriate deductions, and apply the applicable principles for computation of dependency compensation.

The Tribunal also relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, which governs the addition of future prospects and the award of compensation under the relevant conventional heads.

The High Court examined the Tribunal’s treatment of the deceased’s income, particularly paragraph 18 of the impugned award.

The salary slip produced in evidence recorded a monthly salary of ₹54,305, and the Tribunal did not mechanically adopt the gross salary; it made the applicable deductions and assessed the monthly income at ₹45,105.

The corresponding annual income of ₹5,41,260 was then used for computing the compensation.

Since the income was supported by documentary evidence and the Tribunal had accounted for deductions before determining the annual income, the High Court found no error in the assessment or in the resulting computation of compensation.

The insurer’s objection that the income had been improperly assessed was therefore rejected.

Finding no error in the award of ₹56,44,104 with interest at 6% per annum, the Court dismissed the appeal.

The insurer was directed to remit the balance compensation to the Tribunal within 45 days, and the Registry was directed to transfer the mandatory deposit to the concerned Tribunal.