Motor accident compensation must reflect correct income assessment and consortium for each eligible dependent.

The appellants, being the original claimants and legal representatives of the deceased, filed a First Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the judgment and award dated 7 February 2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 173 of 2016.

The claimants contended that the Tribunal had assessed compensation on the lower side by failing to properly consider the deceased’s income, future prospects, dependency, and the appropriate amounts under the conventional heads.

The Insurance Company defended the award, submitting that the Tribunal had correctly assessed income, dependency, future prospects, loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium.

The liability of the vehicle owner and insurer was not disputed before the High Court.

Whether the Tribunal had correctly assessed the compensation payable to the claimants, including the deceased’s monthly income and future dependency loss.

Whether the amounts awarded under loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium required modification in accordance with the applicable Supreme Court precedents.

Whether the claimants were entitled to enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

The Court applied Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, governing appeals against awards of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

It reiterated that the Motor Vehicles Act is beneficial legislation and that compensation must be “just, fair and reasonable,” assessed on the principles of fairness, reasonableness, equity, and realistic approximation rather than a narrow or niggardly approach.

Relying on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the Court applied the principles governing future prospects and conventional compensation, including loss of estate and funeral expenses.

Relying on United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780, it awarded consortium to each of the four dependents at Rs.48,400 per dependent.

The High Court found that the Tribunal had not properly considered the deceased’s monthly income and consequently recalculated the loss of future dependency at Rs.21,50,400.

Applying the principles in Pranay Sethi and Satinder Kaur, the Court also revised the compensation under the conventional heads, including loss of estate, funeral expenses, and consortium for four dependents.

The recalculated total compensation was assessed at Rs.23,31,900.

After deducting the Rs.20,02,128 already awarded by the Tribunal, the Court determined that an additional sum of Rs.3,29,772 was payable to the claimants.

The Court therefore concluded that the Tribunal’s award required limited interference to ensure just compensation.

The claimants were held entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.3,29,772, together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realisation.

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within six weeks of receiving the judgment, while the remaining directions of the Tribunal were maintained.

The Tribunal was directed to disburse the awarded amount, including accrued interest, to the claimants after due verification and compliance with the applicable procedure, subject to deduction of court fees if payable.