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

On 14 July 2015 at approximately 5:20 p.m., the deceased, Sakib, aged 20 years, was travelling by motorcycle from Noida to Delhi with Vikar Ahmad when a DTC bus bearing registration no. DL-IPC-8903 struck the motorcycle from the side.

The deceased fell from the motorcycle and sustained fatal injuries.

His legal representatives instituted a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahdara.

By award dated 4 May 2018, the Tribunal awarded compensation of approximately Rs.4,31,000/- along with interest at 9% per annum.

The claimants appealed seeking enhancement of compensation on the grounds that future prospects had not been granted, an incorrect multiplier had been applied, and compensation for loss of consortium had not been awarded.

1. Whether the claimants were entitled to an addition towards future prospects where the deceased was 20 years old and not in permanent employment.

2. Whether the multiplier was required to be determined with reference to the age of the deceased rather than the age of his mother.

3. Whether the deceased’s father, mother and sister were entitled to compensation for loss of consortium.

4. What was the appropriate enhanced compensation and consequential mode of disbursement?

The Court applied the principles governing computation of motor accident compensation under Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 5 SCC 121, and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680.

Under these principles, a deceased below 40 years of age is ordinarily entitled to a 40% addition towards future prospects where he was self-employed or not in permanent employment.

The multiplier is to be selected with reference to the age of the deceased, not the age of the dependants; this principle was reaffirmed in Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, (2013) 9 SCC 65, and in Pranay Sethi.

For a deceased aged 20 years, the applicable multiplier is 18.

The Court further awarded consortium compensation to the eligible family members in accordance with the principles governing non-pecuniary heads of damages.

The Court found that the Tribunal’s computation was inconsistent with the governing principles.

Since Sakib was 20 years old and was not in permanent employment, the Court added 40% of his monthly income of Rs.10,010/- towards future prospects, resulting in an enhanced monthly income of Rs.14,014/-.

After deducting one-third towards personal expenses, the annual loss of dependency was computed at Rs.1,12,116/-.

The Tribunal had applied a multiplier of 5 based on the mother’s age; applying the deceased’s age of 20 years, the Court substituted the multiplier of 18, resulting in a loss of dependency of Rs.20,18,088/-.

The Court also awarded Rs.40,000/- each to the deceased’s father, mother and sister towards loss of consortium, totalling Rs.1,20,000/-.

With Rs.15,000/- each for loss of estate and funeral expenses, the total compensation was recalculated at Rs.21,68,088/-.

The enhanced compensation was directed to carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition and was to be deposited before the Tribunal within four weeks.

The Tribunal was directed to release a lump sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the enhanced amount within two weeks thereafter, while the balance, together with accrued interest, was to be placed in successive fixed deposits of Rs.20,000/- each, with interest credited to the claimant’s savings account.

The original compensation was to continue to be disbursed in accordance with the Tribunal’s award, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.