Future prospects and filial consortium must be awarded in motor accident claims for a bachelor’s death.

On March 12, 2005, the deceased, Kanubhai Narayanbhai Prajapati (aged 21), was a pillion rider on a motorcycle driven by his father when a Qualis Jeep, driven negligently at high speed, collided with them

Kanubhai succumbed to his injuries six days later

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Sabarkantha, awarded Rs. 2,36,000/- with 6% interest but exonerated the Insurance Company (Respondent No. 3) on the grounds that the driver lacked a valid license

The claimants appealed for enhancement of compensation and to fix liability on the insurer

1. Whether the income assessment and multiplier applied by the Tribunal were appropriate given the age and multiple income sources of the deceased

2. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation under heads of future prospects and loss of consortium in light of settled law

3. Whether the Insurance Company can be exonerated from liability when evidence of a valid driving license is produced at the appellate stage

The court applied the multiplier method and standardized deductions for personal expenses as per Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation.

It relied on National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (16) SCC 680] to grant 40% additional income for future prospects

Regarding non-pecuniary damages, the court applied Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram [(2018) 18 SCC 130] to award filial consortium to parents

Procedurally, Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC was invoked to admit additional evidence regarding the driving license

The Court found the Tribunal’s income assessment of Rs. 2,000/- too low, noting the deceased worked in a factory and assisted in agriculture; it reassessed the income at Rs. 3,000/-

Following Pranay Sethi, the Court added 40% for future prospects and deducted 50% for personal expenses as the deceased was a bachelor

The multiplier was corrected from 13 to 18 based on the deceased's age (21)

Under non-pecuniary heads, the Court applied Magma General to grant Rs. 40,000 per parent (adjusted with increments) for consortium

Crucially, the Court accepted additional evidence showing the driver held a valid license, which the Insurance Company verified as genuine during the appeal, thereby nullifying the grounds for the insurer's exoneration

The Court set aside the Tribunal’s finding exonerating the Insurance Company, holding Respondent No. 3 jointly and severally liable to satisfy the award as the driver possessed a valid license and the policy was subsisting

The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within six weeks