Motor accident compensation must reflect established overseas income despite the deceased’s recent resignation.

Mansi Sidhdharth Maheta, an occupant of a car, died in a collision with a truck on 19 October 2013. Her husband and son brought a claim petition.

The Tribunal assessed her income by reference to her Australian income-tax returns, which showed an average annual income of AUD 31,931 for the three preceding financial years, and awarded compensation including future loss of income, applying 40% future prospects and a multiplier of 17. The insurer appealed, challenging the income assessment, multiplier, deductions, future prospects and interest.

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the deceased’s income at AUD 31,931 despite her having resigned from her job shortly before the accident.

2. Whether the deceased’s income should have been assessed by reference to an accountant’s earnings in India rather than her earnings in Australia.

3. Whether a lower multiplier should have been applied because the deceased lived and worked abroad.

4. Whether the Tribunal’s awards, including its treatment of future prospects, personal-expense deduction and interest at 9%, warranted appellate interference.

The Court applied the principle that compensation for loss of dependency must reflect the income and earning capacity relevant to the family’s actual loss; a recent resignation does not, by itself, negate a demonstrated and consistent income source.

The Court relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi for the applicable multiplier guidelines, noting that those guidelines do not distinguish between Indian and foreign citizens.

It also observed that it had consistently affirmed awards carrying 9% interest.

No statutory provision was cited in the judgment.

The deceased’s tax returns showed income exceeding AUD 30,000 in each of the three years before the accident. The Court therefore rejected the insurer’s contention that her resignation meant she had no income or earning capacity, observing that a person may resign to pursue better prospects.

Because her normal place of residence and work was Australia, the relevant family loss was her Australian income, not the earnings of an accountant in India.

The Court upheld the multiplier of 17 under Pranay Sethi, which makes no distinction based on citizenship, and rejected the challenge to 9% interest in light of the Court’s consistent practice.

Although the insurer also challenged future prospects and the personal-expense deduction, the judgment did not separately analyse those grounds.

It directed that the record and proceedings, if any, be returned to the Tribunal; the pending civil application was disposed of as having become unnecessary.