Documented salary and coaching income may be aggregated to determine a deceased claimant’s benchmark income.

On 30 March 2012, Rishi Malik, aged approximately 29 years, was riding a motorcycle when a bus bearing registration no. DL-1PC-9126 hit him near Gate No. 3, DMS Booth, Maharishi Raman Marg, Delhi. He came under the rear wheel of the bus and died after being taken to JPN Apex Trauma Centre, AIIMS

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of approximately Rs. 25,74,028/-, with interest at 7.5%, to his legal representatives

The claimant appealed seeking enhancement, principally challenging the assessment of the deceased’s income, the deduction towards personal expenses, future prospects, conventional heads of compensation, and the rate of interest

The Court applied the principles governing assessment of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, including Section 171, which empowers the Tribunal to award simple interest on the compensation from the date of institution of the claim petition.

Relying on Savita v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2026:DHC:3626, the Court held that documentary evidence such as income-tax returns should be considered and that, where necessary, benchmark income may be assessed through intelligent guesswork rather than being mechanically restricted to minimum wages.

Under National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, future prospects are to be added according to the nature and stability of the deceased’s employment; the Court applied 40% for a person not in permanent employment.

Under United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780, compensation for loss of consortium was awarded to the claimants, while compensation for loss of love and affection was deleted.

Relying on Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2001) 2 SCC 9, the Court treated prevailing nationalised-bank fixed-deposit rates as a guiding factor for determining interest under Section 171.

The Court found that the ITR for financial year 2011–12, though filed subsequently by the deceased’s father, related to income earned during the financial year in which the accident occurred and therefore could not be disregarded merely because the deceased was not shown to be employed in a conventional permanent job.

The ITR disclosed income of Rs. 1,35,000 from Soloman Engineers and Traders, Rs. 41,293 from Religare Securities Ltd., Rs. 1,21,800 from coaching classes, and Rs. 1,65,270 from capital gains.

Considering that the deceased had previously undertaken different jobs and that coaching income supplemented his livelihood, the Court included the employment and coaching income, but excluded capital gains, and fixed the benchmark income at Rs. 2,98,093 per annum.

Since the deceased was not in permanent employment, future prospects were reduced from 50% to 40%.

The Court then recalculated the loss of dependency using the multiplier of 17 and revised the conventional compensation in accordance with Pranay Sethi and Satinder Kaur: consortium was fixed at Rs. 80,000 for two claimants, loss of estate at Rs. 15,000, funeral expenses at Rs. 15,000, and loss of love and affection was deleted.

In light of the prevailing fixed-deposit rates in 2014–15, interest was enhanced to 8.5% per annum.

The enhanced amount was directed to be deposited before the MACT within four weeks, with 8.5% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, and released to the claimant in accordance with the Court’s directions.

The original compensation was also to be recalculated at 8.5% interest, with any additional amount deposited and released similarly.

The appeal was accordingly disposed of, and pending applications were rendered infructuous.