Facts
Thirumalaisamy died in a road accident on 14 April 2018 while travelling as a pillion rider; the Tribunal found the driver of the insured van negligent.
Source reference: pp. 2–4His wife and daughter claimed compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Source reference: pp. 2–4The Tribunal awarded ₹13,28,236, including ₹11,68,236 for loss of income, ₹80,000 for consortium, and ₹50,000 for loss of love and affection.
Source reference: pp. 2–4The insurer appealed, challenging the age-based calculation, future prospects, multiplier, and award for loss of love and affection.
Source reference: p. 5Issues
1. Whether the Tribunal correctly calculated compensation for loss of dependency, including the deceased’s age, future prospects, deduction for personal expenses, and multiplier.
Source reference: pp. 5–72. Whether the claimants could receive both loss of consortium and a separate amount for loss of love and affection.
Source reference: pp. 5, 7Law Applied
A claim for compensation for death in a motor accident may be brought under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and an appeal against the Tribunal’s award lies under Section 173.
Source reference: pp. 1–2Relying on National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (2) TN MAC 758, the Court applied a 10% addition for future prospects for a deceased aged 60.
Source reference: p. 6The Court also applied a one-third deduction for personal and living expenses and a multiplier of nine in calculating dependency.
Source reference: p. 7It treated the award of consortium as sufficient and set aside the separate award for loss of love and affection.
Source reference: p. 7Reasoning
The Court rejected the insurer’s age challenge because the deceased’s PAN card recorded his date of birth as 1 October 1958, making him 60 at the time of the accident.
Source reference: p. 6It therefore applied 10% future prospects, while affirming the one-third deduction and multiplier of nine.
Source reference: pp. 6–7In its revised calculation, the Court used a monthly income of ₹14,109, added 10% to reach ₹15,520, and calculated dependency at ₹11,17,440.
Source reference: p. 7The judgment does not explain the basis for the ₹14,109 figure, although it earlier records that the Tribunal fixed notional monthly income at ₹6,500.
Source reference: pp. 4, 7The Court removed the separate ₹50,000 award for loss of love and affection because consortium had already been awarded.
Source reference: p. 7Holding
The appeal was partly allowed.
The Court reduced the total compensation from ₹13,28,236 to ₹12,27,440 by modifying the loss-of-dependency award and setting aside the loss-of-love-and-affection award; the other listed heads were retained.
Source reference: pp. 7–8The modified sum carries interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition until deposit.
Source reference: pp. 8–9The insurer was directed to deposit the balance, after credit for any amount already deposited, within six weeks; the Tribunal’s apportionment and disbursement directions remain in force.
Source reference: pp. 8–9Acts & Sections Cited
2 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Motor Vehicles Act, 19882
Original Court PDF
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTDvsT SHANTHI
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
