Madras HC Raises Fatal-Accident Compensation to ₹24.63 Lakh, Fixing Deceased Seedling Seller’s Notional Income at ₹12,000 a Month

The appellants, the deceased Thangaraj’s wife and minor son, sought enhancement of compensation awarded for his death in a 28 September 2014 accident involving a Tata Ace goods vehicle.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal found the vehicle’s driver negligent, assessed the deceased’s monthly income at ₹5,000, and awarded ₹11,35,000 in their claim petition, MCOP No. 618 of 2015.

In a connected claim petition by the deceased’s parents, the Tribunal awarded them ₹1,00,000 each.

It also ordered the insurer to pay the compensation first and recover it from the vehicle owner because the vehicle’s fitness certificate had expired before the accident.

The wife and son appealed, principally challenging the assessment of income and seeking compensation for transportation expenses.

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, provides for an appeal against an award of a Claims Tribunal.

In assessing dependency compensation, the Court applied the principles stated in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 (2) TNMAC 609 (SC): future prospects are added to income, with the applicable percentage determined by the deceased’s age and employment status.

The Court applied a 40% addition for future prospects, a one-fourth deduction for personal and living expenses, and a multiplier of 15 in calculating loss of dependency.

It also treated the expired fitness certificate as a breach of policy conditions, but upheld the direction that the insurer pay the third-party claimants first and recover from the vehicle owner.

The Court found the Tribunal’s monthly income assessment of ₹5,000 inadequate in light of the 2014 accident and the deceased’s claimed work selling seedlings, although the claimed income of ₹25,000 was not established by proof.

It therefore fixed monthly income at ₹12,000, added 40% for future prospects, deducted one-fourth for personal expenses, and applied multiplier 15, producing loss of dependency of ₹22,68,000.

As the Tribunal had made no award for transportation, the Court added ₹5,000 under that head and left the other compensation heads unchanged.

The Court found no basis to interfere with the pay-and-recover direction: the fitness certificate had expired, but the deceased was treated as a third party and the insurance policy was in force.

Compensation in MCOP No. 618 of 2015 was enhanced from ₹11,35,000 to ₹24,63,000, with the deceased’s parents retaining their separate awards of ₹1,00,000 each and the balance of ₹22,63,000 apportioned between the wife and minor son as directed by the Tribunal.

The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount, with interest and costs and after crediting sums already deposited, within six weeks; the pay-and-recover order was confirmed.

The judgment’s compensation table describes the dependency enhancement as ₹13,28,000, although the increase in that head from ₹9,45,000 to ₹22,68,000 is ₹13,23,000; the overall enhancement to ₹24,63,000 includes the additional ₹5,000 for transportation.