For a 55-year-old deceased, future prospects are limited to 15% and multiplier fixed at 9.

On 25 November 2011, Navjibhai Bavabhai Vasava was riding a Suzuki motorcycle near Link Road when a car allegedly being driven rashly and negligently struck the motorcycle from behind, causing fatal injuries.

His legal representatives filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narmada at Rajpipla, which awarded compensation of Rs.14,36,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum.

The Insurance Company challenged the award, contending that the deceased, aged approximately 55 years, was entitled to only 15% future prospects instead of 30% and that a multiplier of 9, rather than 10, ought to have been applied.

The claimants sought enhancement under the conventional heads of compensation by relying on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram.

1. Whether the compensation required reduction by applying 15% instead of 30% towards future prospects and a multiplier of 9 instead of 10, considering the deceased’s age of approximately 55 years?

2. Whether the claimants were entitled to enhancement under the heads of loss of estate, loss of consortium, and funeral expenses?

3. What amount of compensation was payable after accounting for the deceased’s 10% contributory negligence?

The Court applied the principles laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (16) SCC 680, under which a deceased aged between 50 and 60 years is entitled to an addition of 15% to established income towards future prospects, and the appropriate multiplier for a deceased aged 55 years is 9.

It also relied on Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors., 2018 (18) SCC 130, recognising compensation for loss of consortium to each eligible legal representative.

Applying these principles, the Court assessed compensation under loss of dependency and the conventional heads, subject to a 10% deduction for the deceased’s contributory negligence.

The deceased’s monthly income of Rs.15,200/- was undisputed.

Since he was approximately 55 years old, the Court substituted the Tribunal’s 30% addition with 15%, resulting in a monthly income of Rs.17,480/- including future prospects.

As there were two legal representatives, one-third was deducted towards personal expenses, leaving a monthly dependency contribution of Rs.11,654/-; applying the multiplier of 9 produced a loss of dependency of Rs.12,58,632/-.

The Court enhanced loss of estate to Rs.18,150/- and funeral expenses to Rs.18,150/- under Pranay Sethi, and awarded Rs.96,800/- towards loss of consortium, calculated at Rs.48,400/- for each of the two legal representatives under Nanu Ram.

The aggregate compensation was Rs.13,91,732/-, which was reduced by 10% for the deceased’s contributory negligence, yielding Rs.12,52,559/-.

The total compensation was reduced to Rs.12,52,559/- after applying the correct future-prospects percentage, multiplier, conventional-head amounts, and 10% deduction for contributory negligence.

The Court directed the claimants to refund Rs.1,83,841/-, calculated by the Court with reference to the Tribunal’s stated award of Rs.14,36,400/-, from the amount lying in fixed deposit, together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until deposit by the Insurance Company.

Any amount deposited before the High Court was directed to be transmitted to the Tribunal; the records were ordered to be returned, with no order as to costs.