In absence of documentary proof, deceased’s income may be assessed as unskilled labourer’s wages.

Shyam Prakash Bhargav died in a motor accident on 11 September 2021 allegedly caused by the rash and negligent driving of Trailer No. C.G. 10/R.1852 by Respondent No. 1.

His widow, two minor children, and father filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of ₹50,34,000.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded ₹20,54,720, assessing the deceased’s monthly income at ₹9,200 as an unskilled labourer, adding 40% towards future prospects, deducting one-fourth for personal expenses, and applying a multiplier of 16.

The claimants appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhancement, primarily challenging the assessment of income and the amounts awarded under conventional heads.

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the deceased’s monthly income at ₹9,200 instead of the claimed ₹20,000, in the absence of documentary evidence regarding his employment, driving licence, and income?

2. Whether the compensation awarded under the conventional heads—loss of estate, funeral expenses, and consortium/loss of love and affection—required modification in accordance with governing Supreme Court precedents?

3. Whether the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal was required to be enhanced?

The Court applied Sections 166 and 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, governing claims for compensation arising from motor accidents and appeals against awards of the Claims Tribunal.

It relied on Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, for the principles governing deductions towards personal expenses and the selection of the appropriate multiplier; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, for addition of future prospects and standardisation of conventional heads; and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130, for consortium and related compensation.

The Court also applied the principle that, where the claimant fails to produce admissible documentary evidence of employment and income, the deceased’s income may be assessed on a reasonable notional basis.

It further recognised the principle of 10% automatic enhancement every three years under the conventional heads.

The Court held that the claimants had not produced admissible evidence proving the deceased’s alleged employment as a driver, his driving licence, or his income of ₹20,000 per month. Accordingly, the Tribunal was justified in assessing his monthly income at ₹9,200 as an unskilled labourer.

Since the deceased was 31 years old and left four dependants, the addition of 40% for future prospects, deduction of one-fourth towards personal expenses, and application of multiplier 16 were found consistent with the principles in Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi.

However, the amounts under the conventional heads required recalculation. The Court enhanced loss of estate from ₹15,000 to ₹16,500 and consortium from ₹1,60,000 to ₹1,76,000, calculated at ₹44,000 for each of the four dependants. It reduced funeral expenses from ₹25,000 to ₹16,500, considering the Tribunal’s award excessive.

The resulting loss of dependency was correctly calculated at ₹18,54,720, notwithstanding the Tribunal’s typographical reference to ₹18,54,820.

The Court enhanced the total compensation from ₹20,54,720 to ₹20,63,720, thereby granting the appellants an additional ₹9,000.

The additional amount was directed to carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application until realization.

All other terms and conditions of the Tribunal’s award were left undisturbed.