Motor accident compensation enhanced using reassessed income, 40% future prospects, and one-fourth personal-expense deduction.

On 31 October 2004, the deceased, Dhirajbhai @ Dhirubhai Kanjibhai, was riding his motorcycle towards Tikar when the motorcycle driven by original opponent No. 1 allegedly collided with his vehicle due to rash and negligent driving. The deceased suffered serious injuries and died on 12 November 2004.

His heirs instituted Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 131 of 2005 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surendranagar. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 4,64,100/- with interest at 9% per annum.

The claimants challenged the award in appeal, limited to the quantum of compensation.

They contended that the deceased, aged approximately 35 years, was an ex-serviceman, a qualified driver and engaged in agricultural work; that his income had been undervalued; that deduction for personal expenses should be one-fourth rather than one-third; and that the multiplier should be 16.

The Court relied on Minu Rout & Anr. v. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra & Ors., 2013 (10) SCC 695, to support assessment of the income of a qualified driver at Rs. 6,000/- per month.

It applied the principles in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., 2009 (6) SCC 121, concerning the deduction of one-fourth of income for personal expenses where the deceased is survived by a larger number of dependants and the application of the multiplier corresponding to the deceased’s age.

The Court applied National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680, for future prospects and standardized amounts under funeral expenses and loss of estate.

It further relied on Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors., 2018 (18) SCC 130, for awarding consortium to each eligible legal representative.

The Court found that the Tribunal had undervalued the deceased’s earning capacity. The evidence showed that he was an ex-serviceman, a graduate and a qualified driver who had served as a driver in the Army Medical Corps; accordingly, his monthly income was reassessed at Rs. 6,000/-.

Since he was approximately 35 years old, 40% was added towards future prospects, resulting in a monthly income of Rs. 8,400/-.

As the deceased left six legal representatives, the Court applied a one-fourth deduction for personal expenses, leaving Rs. 6,300/- per month for dependency. Applying the multiplier of 16, the loss of dependency was calculated at Rs. 12,09,600/-.

Applying Pranay Sethi and Magma, the Court enhanced funeral expenses to Rs. 18,150/-, awarded Rs. 18,150/- for loss of estate and awarded consortium of Rs. 48,400/- to each of the six claimants, totalling Rs. 2,90,400/-.

The amounts awarded for pain, shock and suffering, medical expenses, and special diet, attendant charges and transportation were left undisturbed because they were not challenged.

From the revised compensation of Rs. 15,82,300/-, the Court deducted 15% for the deceased’s contributory negligence, arriving at Rs. 13,44,955/-.

Consequently, the claimants were awarded additional compensation of Rs. 8,80,855/-.

The additional amount was directed to carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization.

Respondent No. 2–Insurance Company was directed to deposit the additional compensation and interest within six weeks, after which the Tribunal was to disburse the amount to the claimants subject to deduction of any deficit court fees and due verification.