Deceased’s age determines multiplier; 50% personal deduction applies for unmarried persons absent specific proof of dependency.

The Appellants (parents and four siblings) challenged the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Phaltan, dated 02.09.2024

On 01.01.2021, the deceased, Parvani Kakade (age 23), a bright M.A. student and UPSC aspirant, died in a motor accident when a rashly driven tractor dashed her two-wheeler

The Tribunal awarded Rs. 13,28,300/- as compensation, calculating income at Rs. 25,000/- per month, applying a 50% deduction for personal expenses, 40% future prospects, and a multiplier of 5 based on the father’s age

The Appellants sought enhancement, arguing for a multiplier of 18 and a 1/3 deduction due to the large family size

1. Whether the multiplier should be determined based on the age of the deceased or the age of the claimants/parents

2. Whether the standard 50% deduction for personal expenses for an unmarried person should be reduced to 1/3 based on the size of the family, even if the deceased was a non-earning student

The Court relied on Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

It followed the mandate in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680, which established that the multiplier must be based on the age of the deceased

As per Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121, the appropriate multiplier for the age group 21-25 is 18

Regarding deductions, the Court applied the principle from United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur (2020), which holds that 50% is the standard deduction for an unmarried person unless evidence proves the family was dependent specifically on the "income of the deceased"

The Court found the Tribunal’s application of a multiplier of 5 (based on the parent's age) to be ex-facie incorrect and substituted it with a multiplier of 18 based on the deceased’s age (23 years)

On the issue of deduction, the Court rejected the Appellants' argument for a 1/3 deduction. It reasoned that while the family was large, the deceased was a student and there was no evidence that she contributed financially to the household

The Court noted that the father (Appellant No. 1) must have had an independent source of income to support the family and the education of four children, making it unlikely that the family was dependent on the deceased's potential future income at the time of the accident

Consequently, the Court held that "notional income" for a student is a tool for calculation and does not automatically trigger a lower deduction for personal expenses in the absence of proven dependency

The Court partly allowed the appeal, enhancing the total compensation to Rs. 40,58,300/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of application