Documentary evidence of business and agricultural activities justifies enhanced income assessment in motor accident claims.

On 29 February 1996, Tentabhai was travelling in an S.T. bus bearing Registration No. GQE-9239 when the driver allegedly drove rashly and negligently, lost control, and caused the bus to plunge into a ditch.

Tentabhai sustained serious injuries, remained hospitalised for five days, and subsequently died from the injuries.

His legal representatives filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

The Tribunal partly allowed the claim and awarded ₹4,93,000 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing until realization.

The claimants appealed, principally challenging the assessment of the deceased’s monthly income at ₹3,000 and the amounts awarded under future prospects and conventional heads.

They relied on business account statements and revenue records to establish that the deceased carried on trading and agricultural activities.

Whether the deceased’s monthly income was properly assessed by the Tribunal at ₹3,000, or whether the documentary evidence justified enhancement of the income?

Whether the claimants were entitled to an addition towards future prospects and enhanced compensation under loss of estate, funeral expenses, and consortium?

What enhanced compensation and consequential interest, if any, were payable to the claimants?

The Court applied the principles governing assessment of just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, including determination of actual or reasonably assessable income, deduction towards the deceased’s personal expenses, and application of the appropriate multiplier.

Relying on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the Court recognised the addition of future prospects and awarded standardised amounts for loss of estate and funeral expenses.

Relying on Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130, the Court awarded consortium to all four legal representatives.

For the deceased, aged approximately 50 years, the Court applied a 13 multiplier and deducted one-fourth of the income towards personal expenses, as there were four legal representatives.

The Court found that the statements of business accounts at Exhibits 19–27 and the revenue records at Exhibits 28–31 established the deceased’s involvement in grain, kirana and clothes trading and agricultural activities.

Although the exact income of ₹10,000 per month was not proved, the evidence justified increasing the monthly income from ₹3,000 to ₹4,500.

Since the deceased was approximately 50 years old, the Court added 10% towards future prospects, arriving at a monthly income of ₹4,950.

After deducting one-fourth for personal expenses, the monthly contribution to the family was assessed at approximately ₹3,713.

Applying the multiplier of 13, the loss of dependency was calculated at ₹5,79,228.

The Court retained ₹10,000 for pain, shock and suffering because the deceased had remained hospitalised for five days.

Applying Pranay Sethi, it awarded ₹18,150 each for loss of estate and funeral expenses.

Applying Magma General Insurance, it awarded consortium of ₹48,400 to each of the four claimants, totalling ₹1,93,600.

The total compensation was consequently recalculated at ₹8,19,128.

The total compensation was enhanced from ₹4,93,000 to ₹8,19,128, resulting in additional compensation of ₹3,26,128.

The additional amount was directed to carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization, consistent with the Tribunal’s award.

Respondent No. 2, G.S.R.T.C., was directed to deposit the enhanced amount with the Tribunal within eight weeks, after which the Tribunal was to disburse the awarded compensation and interest to the claimants, subject to deduction of deficit court fee and due verification.