For four dependents, personal-expense deduction must be one-fourth under Sarla Verma.

On 1 February 2005, Navinchandra Bhikhalal Trivedi, a GSRTC driver, was proceeding to the workshop to take charge of a bus when the driver of GSRTC bus No. GJ-18-V-8065 reversed the bus and crushed him.

He sustained fatal injuries and died during treatment.

His widow, one daughter and two sons filed a claim petition seeking ₹30,00,000 in compensation.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Deesa, held the bus driver 100% negligent and awarded ₹20,68,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum.

GSRTC appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking reduction of the compensation.

Whether the Tribunal was correct in attributing 100% negligence to the GSRTC bus driver for reversing the bus and causing the deceased’s death.

Whether the Tribunal correctly assessed the compensation, particularly the deduction towards personal expenses and addition towards future prospects.

Whether the claimants were entitled to enhanced amounts under the conventional heads of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses.

The Court applied Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 governing appeals against awards of Motor Accident Claims Tribunals.

It applied the principle of res ipsa loquitur, holding that the circumstances of a heavy vehicle being reversed without due care may establish negligence where the opposing party fails to produce material evidence or examine the driver.

For quantification, the Court relied on Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (6) SCC 121, as affirmed in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, requiring a one-fourth deduction for personal expenses where there are four dependants, 30% addition for future prospects in the case of a deceased aged 44 with permanent employment, and the applicable multiplier of 14.

Under Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130, consortium is payable to eligible spouse and children, along with appropriate amounts for loss of estate and funeral expenses.

The Court upheld the finding of 100% negligence because the bus driver reversed a heavy vehicle in the workshop without adequate care or assistance, and GSRTC neither led contrary evidence nor examined the driver; the circumstances therefore attracted res ipsa loquitur.

However, the Tribunal had deducted only one-tenth of the deceased’s income despite there being four dependants. Applying Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi, the Court deducted one-fourth and added 30% towards future prospects.

On the deceased’s monthly salary of ₹9,099, the addition of ₹2,730 resulted in a gross monthly income of ₹11,829; after the one-fourth deduction, the monthly dependency loss was assessed at ₹8,872.

Applying the multiplier of 14 produced a loss of dependency of ₹14,90,496.

The Court further reassessed the conventional damages at ₹1,93,600 towards consortium for four claimants, ₹18,150 towards loss of estate and ₹18,150 towards funeral expenses, totalling ₹2,29,900 under those heads.

The total compensation was consequently reduced to ₹17,20,396.

The finding that the GSRTC bus driver was solely negligent was affirmed.

The Tribunal’s award of ₹20,68,000 was modified, and the claimants were held entitled to ₹17,20,396 with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization.

GSRTC was permitted to recover/refund the excess amount of ₹3,47,604, together with applicable interest, and the Tribunal was directed to disburse the balance amount with accrued interest to the claimants after verification and compliance with applicable court-fee requirements.