Courts may enhance notional income for dependency despite the absence of documentary proof.

The claimants, the deceased’s husband and sons, sought enhancement of compensation awarded for her death following a road accident on 14 December 2015.

The Tribunal found the autorickshaw driver negligent and awarded Rs.21,64,120, including Rs.12,39,040 for loss of dependency. In calculating dependency, it fixed the deceased’s monthly income at Rs.12,800, added 10% for future prospects, deducted one-third for personal expenses, and applied a multiplier of 11. The claimants appealed, contending that her income should have been assessed at Rs.20,000 per month.

1. Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of the deceased’s monthly income at Rs.12,800 was inadequate and required enhancement.

2. Whether the compensation awarded under the other heads required interference.

The appeal was brought under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides for an appeal against an award of a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

In assessing compensation for loss of dependency, the Court applied the method used by the Tribunal: determine monthly income, add future prospects, deduct the deceased’s personal and living expenses, and apply the appropriate multiplier. The judgment cites no separate precedent or additional statutory rule for this calculation.

The Court noted that negligence was not disputed and that the sole substantive grievance concerned the deceased’s income.

Although the claimants asserted that she earned Rs.20,000 per month through self-employment, they had not proved that amount. Considering the accident date and the deceased’s age of 54, the Court found Rs.12,800 too low and increased the monthly income to Rs.15,000. It added 10% future prospects, deducted one-third for personal expenses, and applied a multiplier of 11, producing loss of dependency of Rs.14,52,000. It found the Tribunal’s awards under the remaining heads just and proper.

The insurer was directed to deposit the amount, less any amount already deposited, within six weeks; the Tribunal’s apportionment and other directions remained in force. No order as to costs.