Motor accident compensation must apply the multiplier based on the deceased’s age, not dependents’ ages.

On 11 March 2005, Sachin Sharma, aged 20 years, was fatally hit by a lorry allegedly driven rashly and negligently near Laxmi Engineering Workshop, Adilabad.

His parents and elder brother filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming ₹8,00,000, asserting that the deceased was employed as a Computer Operator and earned ₹6,000 per month.

The owner was set ex parte, while the insurer denied liability and pleaded contributory negligence and absence of a valid driving licence.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held the accident to have resulted from the driver’s rash and negligent conduct and awarded ₹2,71,500 to the parents, dismissing the claim of the elder brother.

The claimants appealed seeking enhancement.

Whether the claimants were entitled to enhancement of compensation on the basis of the deceased’s asserted monthly income, future prospects and the appropriate multiplier.

Whether the compensation under conventional heads, including loss of estate, funeral expenses and filial consortium, required revision.

Whether the deceased’s elder brother, though not proved to be dependent upon the deceased, was entitled to compensation as a legal representative.

The Court applied Sections 166 and 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, concerning claims for compensation and appeals against awards.

It relied on Rajwati @ Rajjo v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., holding that a salary certificate and supporting evidence cannot be rejected merely because the issuing person or employer records are not produced, particularly where the insurer adduces no rebuttal evidence.

Under National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, future prospects of 40% were added for a self-employed deceased below 40 years, and compensation under conventional heads was standardised with permissible enhancement.

Applying Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, the multiplier for a deceased aged between 15 and 20 years was fixed at 18, and 50% of income was deducted towards personal expenses because the deceased was a bachelor.

Amrit Bhanu Shali v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and M. Mansoor v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. establish that the multiplier is determined with reference to the age of the deceased, not the dependants.

Under Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, the parents were entitled to filial consortium.

Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. establishes that a legal representative may claim compensation even without dependency, including for loss to the estate.

The Court found that the Tribunal had assessed the deceased’s income at ₹2,500 per month without a sufficient basis.

The salary certificate, the evidence of the proprietor of the employer, and the deceased’s computer qualifications supported the claim of a monthly income of ₹6,000, and the insurer produced no evidence to rebut it.

Since the deceased was a 20-year-old bachelor, 50% was deducted for personal expenses and 40% was added towards future prospects, resulting in an annual contribution of ₹50,400.

Applying the multiplier of 18 based on the deceased’s age, the loss of dependency was calculated at ₹9,07,200.

The Court further awarded ₹33,000 under conventional heads and ₹88,000 as filial consortium to the parents.

Although the elder brother was not dependent on the deceased, he remained a legal representative and was therefore entitled to compensation for loss of estate and related non-pecuniary loss.

As liability had already been correctly fastened on the owner and insurer jointly and severally, no interference was required on that aspect.

The owner and insurer were directed to deposit the amount within two months, jointly and severally.

The parents were each awarded ₹4,50,000, while the elder brother was awarded ₹1,28,200 towards loss of estate, love and affection.

The claimants were permitted to withdraw their respective shares with accrued interest, subject to payment of court fee.