Excess compensation under one head may offset a shortfall under another in assessing just compensation.

On 5 August 2009, Mukeshbhai Patel died after a truck allegedly driven rashly and negligently collided with his motorcycle near village Destan.

His claimants sought compensation, and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation with interest and costs, assessing the deceased’s annual income at Rs. 1,28,433 on the basis of a certificate showing that he supplied sugarcane to a mandli

The insurer appealed against the award; the claimants filed cross-objections seeking enhanced compensation

1. Whether the Tribunal’s compensation award was liable to be reduced on the insurer’s appeal, including in light of the income assessment and the amounts awarded under different heads

2. Whether the claimants were entitled to enhanced compensation on their cross-objections

Compensation in a motor accident claim must be just, fair and adequate.

In assessing conventional heads, the Court referred to National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (16) SCC 680, and Magma General Insurance Company v. Nanu Ram @ Charu Ram, AIRONLINE 2018 SC 189, as authorities on conventional amounts and loss of consortium

The Court also considered the deceased’s age and applied a multiplier of 13, as had the Tribunal

The Court considered the Tribunal’s income assessment of Rs. 1,28,433 per annum to be on the higher side because the evidence showed that the deceased supplied agricultural produce, whose benefits would pass to the claimants; the loss attributable to his death could therefore be, at most, supervisory loss

It also noted that the Tribunal had not awarded future prospects, that its conventional allowance exceeded the amount settled in Pranay Sethi, and that its consortium award was below the amounts addressed in Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance

Balancing the excess under one head against the shortfall under another, the Court concluded that the claimants had suffered no net loss in the total compensation and endorsed the Tribunal’s aggregate award

The claimants did not press their cross-objections, which were disposed of as not pressed.

The Tribunal was directed to disburse the entire amount to the claimants in accordance with law