For a married deceased, personal-expense deduction remains one-third despite a sole dependent widow.

The deceased, Anand Ram, aged approximately 58 years, died in a motor vehicle accident on 23 June 2020 when Bolero No. CG-12-AK-3488, allegedly driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1, collided with his motorcycle.

His widow, Smt. Tusiya, and Sushila Bai, described as his adopted and married daughter, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs. 25,40,000/-.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chirimiri, awarded Rs. 4,48,000/- by its award dated 23 August 2023.

The claimants filed the present appeal under Section 173 of the Act seeking enhancement.

The Tribunal assessed the deceased’s monthly income at Rs. 7,000/-, made a 50% deduction towards personal expenses, and awarded Rs. 40,000/- towards consortium to the widow, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate, and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses.

Whether the deceased’s income was required to be reassessed and augmented by future prospects for computing loss of dependency?

Whether deduction towards the deceased’s personal expenses should be one-third rather than one-half, despite the widow being the only proved dependent?

Whether the second appellant, described as the deceased’s adopted and married daughter, was entitled to compensation towards loss of consortium?

Whether the amounts awarded under the conventional heads required enhancement?

The Court applied Sections 166 and 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, governing claims for compensation and appeals against awards.

It relied on Sarla Verma (Smt.) v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, for the principle that, in the case of a deceased married person, the standard deduction towards personal expenses is ordinarily one-third, even where the spouse is the principal or sole dependent.

It applied National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, for addition of future prospects and computation under conventional heads.

It also referred to Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130, concerning consortium.

The Court further applied the principle of periodic 10% enhancement in the conventional amounts for loss of estate, funeral expenses, and consortium.

The Court found that, although the claimants asserted that Anand Ram was earning Rs. 12,000/- per month as a head mason, there was no documentary proof of his occupation or income.

Considering the prevalent market rates and the applicable minimum wages in Chhattisgarh, it reassessed his monthly income at Rs. 8,860/- as an unskilled worker.

Since no future prospects had been granted by the Tribunal, the Court added 10% to the income, resulting in an annual income of Rs. 1,16,952/-.

Applying Sarla Verma, it held that the fact that the widow was the only proved dependent did not justify a 50% deduction because the deceased was a married person; the appropriate deduction was one-third.

With the multiplier of 9, the loss of dependency was calculated at Rs. 7,01,712/-.

The Court declined to grant consortium to the second appellant because she was a major, married woman, no adoption deed had been produced, and the evidence did not establish her legal status as an adopted daughter dependent on the deceased.

It enhanced the conventional amounts to Rs. 16,500/- each for loss of estate and funeral expenses and Rs. 44,000/- for the widow’s consortium.

The total compensation was enhanced from Rs. 4,48,000/- to Rs. 7,78,712/-.

The enhanced amount comprised Rs. 7,01,712/- towards loss of dependency, Rs. 16,500/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 16,500/- towards funeral expenses, and Rs. 44,000/- towards consortium to the widow.

Appellant No. 1 was held entitled to the additional sum of Rs. 3,30,712/-, carrying interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application until realization.

The remaining terms of the Tribunal’s award were left undisturbed.