For an unmarried deceased, one-half of income must be deducted for personal and living expenses.

The appellants, the deceased Durgesh Kumar’s mother, father and minor sister, sought enhancement of compensation following his death from injuries sustained in a motorcycle accident on 22 December 2019.

The Claims Tribunal awarded ₹13,54,600, assessing monthly income at ₹6,000, adding 40% for future prospects, deducting one-third for personal expenses, and applying a multiplier of 18.

It awarded ₹30,000 for loss of estate, ₹15,000 for funeral expenses and ₹1,00,000 for medical expenses, but no consortium.

The claimants appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, contending that the income assessment and conventional-head awards were inadequate.

The insurer argued that, as the deceased was unmarried, one-half—not one-third—should be deducted for personal expenses.

1. Whether the deceased’s monthly income should be reassessed for calculating loss of dependency

2. Whether the deduction for the deceased’s personal and living expenses should be one-half, given that he was unmarried

3. Whether the awards under conventional heads, including consortium, required modification

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for an appeal against a Claims Tribunal’s award.

In assessing compensation, Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors., (2009) 6 SCC 121, and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, supply principles for calculating dependency, including the deduction for an unmarried deceased’s personal expenses and the addition for future prospects.

Under Pranay Sethi, conventional awards include ₹15,000 each for loss of estate and funeral expenses; Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors., (2018) 18 SCC 1307, supports an award of consortium to eligible family members.

The applicable Chhattisgarh minimum-wage notification was used to assess the deceased’s income.

The Court considered the deceased to have been about 20 years old and treated him as an unskilled worker.

Applying the relevant minimum-wage notification, it assessed his monthly income at ₹8,600 rather than ₹6,000.

Because he was unmarried, the Court held that one-half of his income should be deducted for personal and living expenses, replacing the Tribunal’s one-third deduction.

It then recalculated dependency using 40% future prospects and a multiplier of 18.

The Court also replaced the Tribunal’s ₹30,000 loss-of-estate award with ₹15,000, retained ₹15,000 for funeral expenses, and awarded consortium of ₹40,000 to each of the three claimants.

The additional ₹1,95,720 was made payable with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim application until realization; the remaining terms of the Tribunal’s award were left unchanged.

The Registry was directed to communicate the enhanced amount to the claimants in Hindi.