Death compensation enhanced to ₹23,54,640 by correcting amounts awarded under conventional heads.

Ajay Sahu, aged approximately 22 years, died in a motor-vehicle accident on 6 March 2023 involving motorcycle No. CG 25 K 9630.

His claimants, Sunita Sahu and Shivkumar Sahu, challenged the award dated 4 April 2024 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, in Claim Case No. 1227/2023.

The Tribunal assessed the deceased’s monthly income at ₹14,700, applied a 40% addition towards future prospects, deducted 50% towards personal expenses, applied multiplier 18, and awarded compensation of ₹23,35,640, although the award incorrectly recorded the total as ₹23,05,940.

The claimants appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement, principally on the grounds that the income and amounts awarded under conventional heads had been assessed inadequately.

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal required enhancement on account of an erroneous or inadequate assessment of the deceased’s income and loss of dependency.

Whether the amount awarded under conventional heads was required to be enhanced in accordance with the governing Supreme Court precedents.

Whether the Tribunal’s other directions, including the pay-and-recover order, required interference.

The appeal was considered under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which permits an appeal against an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

For computation of compensation, the Court applied National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, concerning future prospects and conventional heads; Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, concerning deduction for personal expenses and selection of multiplier; and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 1304, concerning compensation under conventional heads.

The applicable calculation required addition of 40% towards future prospects, deduction of 50% towards personal expenses, application of multiplier 18, and award of ₹1,32,000 under conventional heads.

The Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal’s assessment of the deceased’s monthly income at ₹14,700, as supported by the salary slip, Ex. P-9.

Applying the principles in Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma, the Court added 40% towards future prospects, resulting in an annual income of ₹2,46,960; deducted 50% towards personal expenses, leaving ₹1,23,480; and applied multiplier 18, producing ₹22,22,640 towards loss of dependency.

However, the Tribunal had awarded only ₹1,13,000 under conventional heads. Applying the relevant Supreme Court precedents, the Court enhanced this amount to ₹1,32,000, comprising ₹18,000 each for loss of estate and funeral expenses and ₹96,000 under the applicable consortium heads.

Since the Court found no other ground warranting interference, the remaining terms of the Tribunal’s award, including the pay-and-recover direction, were left undisturbed.

The compensation was enhanced from the Tribunal’s correctly calculable amount of ₹23,35,640 to ₹23,54,640.

The claimants were held entitled to the enhanced total compensation of ₹23,54,640, with the additional amount carrying interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application until realization.

All other conditions of the Tribunal’s award were maintained.

The Registry was directed to communicate the enhanced amount to the claimants in Hindi Devanagari, with assistance from paralegal workers and the concerned Legal Aid authority, if required.