For 2014 accidents, notional income of ₹8,500 and 40% future prospects apply when calculating dependency compensation.

Kali Prasad, aged 30, died in a road accident on 8 November 2014.

His wife and minor child claimed compensation, asserting that he worked as a KPTCL bill collector and also undertook agricultural work, with a monthly income of ₹30,000.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal assessed his income at ₹5,000 per month and awarded ₹13,57,500, including medical expenses of ₹2,83,000.

The wife and child appealed for enhancement.

During the appeal, the deceased’s father, who had been joined as a respondent, died; his two sons were brought on record as his legal representatives.

1. Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of the deceased’s income and the resulting loss-of-dependency award should be enhanced

2. Whether compensation for consortium and other conventional heads should be reassessed, and how the compensation should be apportioned given the father’s death during the appeal

The appeal was brought under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

In assessing income, the Court relied on the Legal Services Authority chart for accidents in 2014–15, which fixed notional income at ₹8,500 per month; it allowed 40% for future prospects and deducted one-third for personal expenses, applying multiplier 16 to the deceased, aged 30.

Relying on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the Court awarded ₹15,000 each for funeral and transportation expenses and loss of estate.

It assessed consortium at ₹40,000 for each of the three eligible claimants.

The Court held that ₹5,000 per month was too low for a 2014 accident and substituted the chart-based income of ₹8,500.

It added 40% for future prospects, applied multiplier 16 and deducted one-third for personal expenses, calculating loss of dependency at ₹15,23,200.

It increased consortium to ₹1,20,000 for the wife, child and deceased’s mother, and reassessed funeral and transportation expenses and loss of estate at ₹15,000 each, while leaving the medical-expense award unchanged.

Because the medical bills had been produced by the deceased’s parents and there was no rebuttal evidence that they had not met the expenses, the Court declined to transfer the medical-expense award exclusively to the wife.

In light of the father’s death and the changed circumstances, it apportioned the total compensation 40% to the wife, 30% to the child and 30% to the mother.

The total compensation was enhanced from ₹13,57,500 to ₹19,56,200, with interest at 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of the petition until realization.

The Tribunal was directed to adjust amounts already released and apportion the balance in the stated proportions.