Multiplier for loss of dependency must be based on the deceased’s age, not the dependent parent’s age.

On 15 November 2006, truck bearing registration no. HR-37B-6085 (“truck no. 1”), driven by Ram Lalitha Shah and insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., collided with truck bearing registration no. KA-25-9249 (“truck no. 2”). Subash, aged 28 years, was travelling in truck no. 1 as a co-driver and died in the accident.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Central District, Delhi, awarded compensation of Rs.6,44,760/- with interest in Suit No.210/2011.

The claimants filed MAC.APP. 1022/2017 seeking enhancement, while Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. filed MAC.APP. 1063/2017 seeking reduction of the award.

The Tribunal had assessed the deceased’s monthly income at Rs.3,940/- on the basis of minimum wages for a skilled worker, applied a multiplier of 13 based on the mother’s age, and made conventional-head awards that were challenged in appeal.

1. Whether the deceased’s income should have been assessed above Rs.3,940/- per month on the basis that he was employed as a long-haul co-driver and may have received overtime payments?

2. Whether the claimants were entitled to an addition of 40% towards future prospects?

3. Whether the multiplier was required to be determined with reference to the deceased’s age rather than the age of his mother?

4. Whether the deduction towards the deceased’s personal and living expenses should be increased from one-third to one-half?

5. Whether the compensation under loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, and loss of estate required modification in accordance with applicable Supreme Court precedents?

6. Whether the finding regarding negligence and liability was sustainable, and whether interest should run for the entire period from filing of the claim petition until payment?

The Court applied the principles in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, under which future prospects are to be added to the income of an eligible deceased claimant and compensation under conventional heads is to be standardised.

It relied on Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, for determining the multiplier with reference to the age of the deceased and for applying the appropriate deduction towards personal expenses.

Under United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780, a separate award for loss of love and affection is impermissible, while consortium is payable to eligible claimants.

The Court also applied the evidentiary principle that a claim for higher income or overtime must be supported by material evidence; in its absence, income may be assessed on the proved salary or notified minimum wages.

The Court sustained the finding on negligence after considering the testimony of PW-2, the eyewitness, which indicated that any negligence was attributable to the driver of truck no. 1, Ram Lalitha Shah; it also noted that the Tribunal’s issues had been amended to include negligence on the part of that driver.

The Court declined to enhance the deceased’s income because the truck owner had stated that he was paid Rs.3,500/- per month, the Tribunal had already adopted the higher figure of Rs.3,940/- based on skilled-worker minimum wages, and no evidence of overtime or additional payment had been produced.

Since the deceased was 28 years old, the Court added 40% towards future prospects.

It retained the one-third deduction because the deceased was contributing to the family income, but corrected the multiplier from 13 to 17 by applying the deceased’s age rather than the mother’s age.

Applying the principles in Pranay Sethi and Satinder Kaur, it awarded Rs.80,000/- towards consortium for two claimants, deleted the award for loss of love and affection, and fixed funeral expenses and loss of estate at Rs.15,000/- each.

The resulting loss of dependency was Rs.7,50,108/-, and the revised net compensation, after adjustment of interim compensation, was Rs.8,10,108/-.

The Court further directed that interest be calculated for the entire period from the filing of the claim petition until actual payment, in view of the Tribunal’s interim order dated 8 February 2011.

The compensation was enhanced by Rs.2,15,108/-, bringing the revised compensation to Rs.8,10,108/- after adjustment of interim compensation.

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. was directed to deposit the enhanced amount with accrued interest at 7.5% per annum, calculated from the date of filing of the claim petition until actual payment, within four weeks.

Considering the age of the claim and the passage of time, the enhanced compensation and accrued interest were directed to be released to the claimants in a lump sum.

Both appeals were disposed of accordingly, and the pending applications were rendered infructuous.