Fatal-accident compensation must apply a one-fifth personal-expense deduction where seven dependents survive.

Facts

On 5 February 2019, Sheetal Rayappa Datawad died in a collision between his motorcycle and a truck.

Source reference: pp. 3–6

His wife, four children and parents sought compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belagavi.

Source reference: pp. 3–6

The Tribunal awarded ₹22,74,000, including ₹21,93,250 for loss of dependency, and the claimants appealed seeking enhancement.

Source reference: pp. 3–6

The High Court considered the deceased’s income, deductions for personal expenses, future prospects and compensation under conventional heads.

Source reference: pp. 8–11

Issues

1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was inadequate and required enhancement

Source reference: p. 8, para. 14

2. What order should follow from the determination of the appeal

Source reference: p. 8, para. 14

Law Applied

Under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, an aggrieved party may appeal a Tribunal’s award.

Source reference: p. 2

In assessing compensation, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, provides for adding future prospects to income and governs the conventional heads of compensation; Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, 2018 ACJ 2782, recognises spousal, parental and filial consortium for eligible family members.

Source reference: p. 9, para. 16

The Court applied a 25% future-prospects addition, a multiplier of 13 for the deceased aged 48, and a one-fifth deduction for personal expenses, given seven dependants.

Source reference: pp. 10–11, para. 19

Reasoning

The Court found the documents concerning the deceased’s income insufficient to substantiate the claimed amount, but accepted that he operated a provisional store.

Source reference: pp. 9–10, paras. 18–19

The registration certificate supported the existence of the business, while its cancellation after his death indicated that the legal heirs had not continued it.

Source reference: pp. 9–10, paras. 18–19

In those circumstances, the Court considered monthly income of ₹20,000 reasonable, rather than the Tribunal’s ₹15,000.

Source reference: pp. 9–10, paras. 18–19

Applying the stated multiplier, future-prospects addition and personal-expense deduction, it assessed loss of dependency at ₹31,20,000.

Source reference: p. 11, paras. 19–20

It enhanced consortium to ₹3,08,000 for the wife, children and parents, and awarded ₹33,000 for loss of estate and funeral expenses after 10% escalation.

Source reference: pp. 9–11, paras. 16–17, 21

Holding

The appeal was allowed in part.

The total compensation was enhanced from ₹22,74,000 to ₹34,61,000, with interest at 6% per annum on the enhanced amount.

Source reference: pp. 11–13, paras. 22, 24

The respondents were held jointly and severally liable, and the insurer was directed to deposit the compensation with accrued interest before the Tribunal within four weeks of receiving the certified judgment.

Source reference: pp. 11–13, paras. 22, 24