Cyclist Killed By Bus: Orissa HC Raises Family’s Compensation To ₹2.6 Lakh, Adding 25% For Future Prospects

On 28 April 1999, Kirtan Das was riding a bicycle when a bus allegedly struck him from behind, causing his death at the scene.

His legal representatives brought a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Tribunal assessed his monthly income at Rs.1,500, awarded Rs.1,83,000 with interest, and granted the insurer a right of recovery.

The claimants appealed, seeking enhancement of compensation.

The High Court considered the Tribunal’s income assessment and whether an addition for future prospects had been omitted.

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides the basis for a claim for compensation arising from a motor-vehicle death, while Section 173(1) provides for an appeal against the Tribunal’s award.

In assessing compensation, the Court used the deceased’s established income, added 25% for future prospects because he was about 45 years old, deducted one-third for personal and living expenses, and applied a multiplier of 14; it also added Rs.50,000 as general damages.

The judgment cites no precedent for these calculations.

It refers to Order XLI Rule 14(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure in dispensing with notice to the owner, who had been ex parte before the Tribunal.

The appellants relied on oral testimony and photocopied salary slips to support an income of Rs.5,000 per month.

The Court upheld the Tribunal’s rejection of that evidence, noting the absence of reliable proof of employment or income, such as original salary records or evidence from the employer; it therefore retained the Rs.1,500 monthly assessment.

However, the Tribunal had omitted future prospects.

Given the deceased’s age, the Court added 25%, producing a monthly income of Rs.1,875, deducted one-third for personal expenses, and applied a multiplier of 14 to arrive at Rs.2,10,000 for loss of dependency.

Adding Rs.50,000 in general damages yielded total compensation of Rs.2,60,000.

The insurer’s recovery right remained undisturbed because it had not been challenged.

The total compensation was enhanced to Rs.2,60,000; since the original award was Rs.1,83,000, the insurer was directed to pay the differential Rs.77,000 with simple interest at 6% per annum from 13 October 1999 until realization, within eight weeks.

The Tribunal was directed to disburse the amount equally among the claimants, retaining 20% of each claimant’s share in a five-year fixed deposit in a nationalized bank.

The insurer’s recovery right was confirmed, and there was no order as to costs.