Employer’s specific service record prevails over post-mortem estimation for determining age and multiplier.

On 17 September 2013, Khirod Chetia was walking on the left side of the Tingrai–Tengakhat PWD Road when motorcycle No. AS-06-G-5794, allegedly driven rashly and negligently by Bhakti Nath Gogoi, struck him from behind. He sustained serious injuries and died on 19 September 2013 after being taken for treatment.

His wife and two sons filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dibrugarh.

The Tribunal awarded Rs.38,15,068 with interest at 9% per annum by judgment dated 7 August 2016 in MAC Case No. 97/2013.

The Insurance Company appealed, contending that the deceased’s age, multiplier, future-prospects addition and income had been incorrectly assessed. The claimants filed cross-objections contending that the deceased’s income had been assessed too low.

1. Whether the deceased’s age should be assessed as 53 years, on the basis of his employer’s service records, rather than 45 years as recorded in the post-mortem report, and whether the corresponding multiplier should be 11 instead of 13?

2. Whether the deceased’s monthly income was correctly assessed by the Tribunal, particularly regarding deductions for leave encashment, professional tax, income tax and other allowances?

3. Whether the addition towards future prospects and the amounts awarded under conventional heads required modification?

The claim was adjudicated under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, governing claims for compensation arising from motor-vehicle accidents.

For computation of loss of dependency, the Court applied the principles in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, under which the appropriate multiplier is determined with reference to the deceased’s age and a person over 50 years but below 60 years is generally entitled to a 15% addition for future prospects.

The Court further applied the principle that income for dependency must reflect actual earnings, while non-recurring receipts such as leave encashment and statutory deductions such as income tax and professional tax are excluded or deducted in determining the relevant income.

Compensation was also awarded for spousal consortium, parental consortium and funeral expenses.

The Court preferred Exhibit-9, the employer-issued service certificate specifying the deceased’s date of birth as 31 July 1960, over the post-mortem report’s estimated age of 45 years and the driving licence mentioning only the year 1963.

It therefore assessed the deceased’s age at 53 years and applied multiplier 11 rather than 13.

For income, the Court deducted Rs.78,743 towards leave encashment, Rs.208 as professional tax and Rs.39,464 as income tax from the gross amount of Rs.1,91,253, arriving at annual/monthly salary figure of Rs.72,838 as treated in the judgment.

It then added 15% for future prospects, producing Rs.83,763, deducted one-third for personal expenses because there were three dependants, and arrived at Rs.55,842 as the monthly contribution to the family.

Applying the multiplier of 11, the loss of dependency was calculated at Rs.73,71,144. The Court added Rs.40,000 for spousal consortium, Rs.80,000 for parental consortium and Rs.15,000 for funeral expenses.

It determined the total compensation at Rs.75,06,144, payable with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization.

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the outstanding amount before the High Court Registry within six weeks, after which it was to be disbursed to the claimants upon verification.

The statutory deposit of Rs.25,000 was directed to be returned to the Insurance Company.