01Facts
The claimants—the deceased Manikandan’s wife, three minor children and mother—sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for his death in a road accident on 25 January 2020.
pp. 3–5The Tribunal found the car driver negligent and fixed the deceased’s notional monthly income at ₹18,000, added 40% for future prospects, applied a multiplier of 17 and deducted one-fourth for personal expenses. It awarded ₹41,63,000 in total, including ₹2,20,000 for loss of love and affection to five claimants
pp. 3–5The claimants appealed seeking enhancement; the insurer appealed challenging the quantum, including the income assessment and interest on future prospects
p. 602Issues
i.1. Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of the deceased’s notional income and resulting loss-of-income award required interference
p. 7 · ¶ 12ii.2. Whether the award for loss of love and affection to the first claimant, in addition to spousal consortium, was proper
p. 8 · ¶ 14iii.3. Whether the award otherwise required modification, including on the insurer’s challenge to interest
p. 6, 8 · ¶ 9, 1403Law Applied
Sections 166 and 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, respectively govern a claim for compensation and an appeal from a Claims Tribunal award.
Under National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, future prospects are added to income when assessing compensation for loss of dependency; under Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, the multiplier and deduction for personal and living expenses are determined by reference to the deceased’s age and number of dependants
p. 7 · ¶ 13The Court also applied the principle that a claimant awarded spousal consortium should not receive a further award under loss of love and affection for the same relationship
p. 8 · ¶ 14Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173Section 166
04Reasoning
The Court held that ₹18,000 was a reasonable monthly notional income in light of the 2020 accident, the cost of living and the number of dependants; the deceased’s driving licence for transport vehicles also supported the assessment. It therefore left undisturbed the 40% addition for future prospects, one-fourth deduction and multiplier of 17, and rejected both parties’ challenges to the loss-of-income calculation
p. 7 · ¶ 13However, because the wife had already received ₹44,000 for consortium, she was not entitled to a further ₹44,000 under loss of love and affection. The remaining four claimants were allowed ₹44,000 each under that head, reducing it from ₹2,20,000 to ₹1,76,000
p. 8 · ¶ 14The Court found the other heads and the interest award proper
p. 8 · ¶ 1405Holding
The insurer’s appeal was partly allowed, and the award was modified by reducing compensation for loss of love and affection by ₹44,000. The total compensation was fixed at ₹41,18,600, rounded to ₹41,19,000, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition until deposit.
pp. 9–10 · ¶ 15–16The insurer was directed to deposit the modified amount, less any amount already deposited, within four weeks. The claimants’ appeal for enhancement was dismissed; no costs were awarded
pp. 9–10 · ¶ 15–16Original Court PDF
M.DEEPAvsMAHESHWARI.D
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
