For deceased businessmen, average income from prior income-tax returns determines loss-of-dependency compensation.

On 16 February 2005, Ashokbhai was travelling by bus to Bayad for his auto-parts business.

After the bus broke down, the passengers alighted and stood on the left side of the bus.

A truck bearing registration No. GJ-7-Z-6859 allegedly came at excessive speed and dashed against Ashokbhai, causing fatal injuries.

His widow and son filed a motor accident claim petition against the truck driver, owner and insurer.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal partly allowed the claim and awarded ₹2,41,000 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing until realization.

The claimants appealed, challenging the quantum of compensation, particularly the assessment of income and the amounts awarded under conventional heads.

Whether the deceased’s actual income should be reassessed on the basis of his income-tax returns rather than the notional income of ₹3,000 per month adopted by the Tribunal?

Whether the claimants were entitled to enhancement under future loss of income, loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate?

What amount of enhanced compensation and interest should be awarded, and against whom?

The Court applied the principles governing computation of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, including assessment of actual income, future prospects, personal-expense deduction and the multiplier method.

It relied on Rashmirekha Tripathy v. Branch Manager (Legal Claims), Sri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2026 INSC 661, for the principle that, in the case of a businessman, the average income disclosed in income-tax returns filed before the accident may be used as the reference point for assessing actual income.

It applied National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, for addition towards future prospects and standardized amounts under loss of estate and funeral expenses.

It further relied on Magma General Insurance Co. v. Nanu Ram, AIRONLINE 2018 SC 189, for awarding consortium to the spouse and child of the deceased.

The Court found that the deceased had been carrying on business under the name “Jinendra Auto Electric” and that his income-tax returns for financial years 2002–2003 and 2003–2004 had been proved and filed before his death.

Those returns disclosed annual incomes of ₹72,330 and ₹71,375 respectively; consequently, the Court reassessed the annual income at approximately ₹71,852.

Since the deceased was 57 years old, 10% was added towards future prospects, resulting in an annual income of ₹79,037.

As he was survived by his widow and son, one-third was deducted towards personal expenses, producing annual dependency of ₹52,691.

Applying a multiplier of 9, the loss of dependency was calculated at ₹4,74,219.

The Court additionally awarded ₹96,800 towards consortium for two claimants, ₹18,150 towards loss of estate and ₹18,150 towards funeral expenses, thereby determining total compensation at ₹6,07,319.

The total compensation was enhanced from ₹2,41,000 to ₹6,07,319, resulting in an additional award of ₹3,66,319.

The additional amount was made payable by Respondent No. 3—the insurance company—with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization.

The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within four weeks, and the Tribunal’s award was modified accordingly.

No order as to costs was made.