Motor accident compensation award upheld after affirming salary, income-tax deduction, and future-prospects assessment.

On 28 December 2020, at approximately 6:30 p.m., Murugan was riding his motorcycle on Ponneri Highways Road when a container lorry, allegedly driven rashly and negligently, hit the motorcycle from behind. Murugan suffered multiple injuries and died on 31 December 2020. He was aged 54 years and employed as a Special Sub-Inspector of Police

His wife, son and parents filed a motor accident claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The insurer of the container lorry disputed the manner of accident, the validity of the vehicle and driving documents, and the insurance coverage

The eyewitness supported the claimants’ version, and the Tribunal held the lorry driver negligent and the policy valid on the date of the accident

Based on the deceased’s salary slips and bank statement, the Tribunal determined his gross monthly income at Rs.67,695/-, deducted income tax, and fixed the monthly income at Rs.61,300/-. It added 15% towards future prospects, deducted three-fourths towards personal expenses, and awarded total compensation of Rs.71,79,005/-

The insurer appealed seeking reduction, while the claimants appealed seeking enhancement

Whether the Tribunal correctly determined the deceased’s income after accounting for income tax and properly assessed the loss of dependency

Whether a split multiplier was required because the deceased was 54 years old and nearing retirement

Whether the award of 15% towards future prospects and the compensation under the conventional heads was legally and factually justified

Whether the claimants were entitled to enhancement of the compensation, including on the ground that income tax ought not to have been deducted

The appeals were filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which permits an appeal against an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal

For computation of compensation, the Court applied the principles in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, concerning the selection of multiplier and deduction for personal expenses, and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, concerning future prospects and the conventional heads of compensation

The Court accepted the use of the deceased’s proved salary, deduction of applicable income tax, addition of 15% future prospects, and the multiplier of 11 applicable to a person aged 54 years

A split multiplier is not warranted merely because the deceased was nearing retirement unless the evidence justifies such an adjustment

The Court found the eyewitness’s evidence reliable: he was an independent auto driver who had witnessed the lorry striking the motorcycle from behind, and his testimony remained unshaken in cross-examination. Accordingly, negligence was established against the lorry driver, and the insurer’s liability under the policy was not in dispute

The deceased’s salary was supported by the payslips and bank statement; the December 2020 payslip showed a gross income of Rs.67,695/- per month

The Tribunal’s calculation of annual income at Rs.8,12,340/-, followed by deduction of income tax under the applicable slab, resulting in monthly income of approximately Rs.61,300/-, was accepted as reasonable

Applying the principles in Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi, the Court upheld the addition of 15% future prospects, the three-fourths deduction for personal expenses, and the multiplier of 11. It found no evidentiary or legal basis for applying a split multiplier merely on account of the deceased’s age.

The amounts awarded for loss of estate, consortium, funeral expenses and transportation were also held to be just and fair

Both CMA No. 2505 of 2026 and CMA No. 2 of 2025 were dismissed, and the award dated 30 August 2024 in M.C.O.P. No. 345 of 2021 awarding Rs.71,79,005/- was confirmed. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed