Karnataka HC Cuts 49-Year-Old’s Family’s Fatal-Crash Award To Rs 46.76 Lakh After Correcting Multiplier, Rejects Helmet-Based Reduction

On 9 May 2023, Sai Baba @ Sai Babu died after a car driven by respondent No. 1 collided with his scooter.

His wife, minor daughter and mother sought compensation, stating that he was employed at Prakash Sponge Iron and Power Private Limited.

The Tribunal awarded them Rs.50,11,360, with interest at 6% per annum, and held the driver, owner and insurer jointly and severally liable.

The insurer appealed, challenging the compensation calculation, including the treatment of conveyance allowance, the deceased’s age and multiplier, and future prospects; it also relied on the deceased’s failure to wear a helmet.

Under the multiplier method for fatal accident claims, the deceased’s established income is adjusted for future prospects, reduced by the appropriate deduction for personal expenses, and multiplied by the factor applicable to the deceased’s age.

Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009 ACJ 1298) sets out the applicable multiplier by age.

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi ((2017) 16 SCC 680) governs the addition for future prospects, personal-expense deduction and conventional heads of compensation.

Relying on Vishakha v. Shree Pal (MAC APP No. 412/2011, decided 3 January 2012), the Court treated conveyance allowance paid as part of salary as income for calculating dependency; it distinguished such allowance from travel expenses incurred in performing employment duties.

The Court also held that non-use of a helmet, without more, did not justify assuming that the deceased would have avoided the fatal head injury.

The Court accepted the deceased’s net monthly salary of Rs.33,389, including conveyance allowance, after noting the salary records and the Rs.200 professional-tax deduction.

It found that the deceased was aged 49, so the correct multiplier was 13 rather than the Tribunal’s multiplier of 14.

As he was a permanent employee, the Court upheld a 30% addition for future prospects; with three dependants, it deducted one-third for personal expenses. These figures produced dependency compensation of Rs.45,14,172.

Applying the 10% enhancement to consortium under Pranay Sethi, it awarded Rs.44,000 to each of the three claimants, while leaving the Tribunal’s awards for loss of estate and funeral expenses undisturbed.

It rejected the helmet argument as speculative.

It maintained the joint and several liability of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and directed the insurer to deposit the compensation and accrued interest before the Tribunal within six weeks of receiving the certified judgment.