Major children remain dependants for motor accident compensation absent evidence of self-sufficiency.

On 8 November 2019, Bhagchand Madhukar was walking towards his village when truck No. CG-15-DH-8128, allegedly driven rashly and negligently, struck him, causing his death at the spot.

His wife and three children filed a claim petition under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of ₹40,66,000.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balodabazar, awarded ₹6,64,000 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.

The claimants appealed, contending that the deceased’s income, future prospects, multiplier, and number of dependants had been incorrectly assessed.

The Tribunal had treated only the widow and the youngest daughter as dependants, excluding the two major sons.

Whether the Tribunal had correctly assessed the deceased’s income at ₹6,000 per month in the absence of reliable documentary proof of his claimed income?

Whether the deceased’s two major sons could be treated as dependants for computing loss of dependency?

Whether the compensation required enhancement by applying the appropriate deduction for personal expenses, multiplier, and future prospects under the applicable precedents?

The Court applied Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, governing claims for compensation arising from motor-vehicle accidents.

Compensation must be “just and proper,” neither inadequate nor excessive.

For computation of loss of dependency, the Court relied on Sarla Verma (Smt.) v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, applying a 25% deduction towards personal and living expenses where there are four dependants and a multiplier of 10 for a deceased aged 55 years.

It further relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, under which 10% is added towards future prospects for a self-employed or otherwise eligible deceased between 50 and 60 years of age.

Conventional amounts of ₹15,000 for loss of estate, ₹15,000 for funeral expenses, and ₹40,000 for loss of consortium were awarded.

The Court found that the certificate produced as Exhibit P-20, indicating a monthly income of ₹26,000–₹28,000, was insufficient to establish the deceased’s actual income. It therefore upheld the Tribunal’s notional assessment of ₹6,000 per month, or ₹72,000 annually.

However, the Court held that there was no evidence showing that the two major sons were self-dependent or financially independent, and the respondents had produced no contrary material. They were consequently treated as dependants, resulting in four dependants and a 25% deduction from the annual income.

The annual contribution to the family was therefore assessed at ₹54,000, which, multiplied by 10, produced a loss of dependency of ₹5,40,000.

Applying Pranay Sethi, the Court added 10% towards future prospects, amounting to ₹54,000, and retained the conventional heads of compensation, bringing the total to ₹6,64,000.

Since the reassessment did not increase the total amount, the principal modification concerned the entitlement and distribution of the compensation among all four dependants.

The total compensation of ₹6,64,000 awarded by the Tribunal was maintained, together with the existing conditions and interest at 9% per annum.

The Court modified the award by recognising appellants 2 and 3—the deceased’s two major sons—as dependants and directed that all four appellants would share the compensation, with each entitled to 25% of the total amount.