Multiplier for motor accident compensation must be based on the age of the deceased, not the dependents.

The appellants (parents of the deceased) sought an enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), East District, Karkardooma, vide judgment dated 23rd December 2026.

The deceased, Mohd. Shahruk (aged 18), died in a motor accident on 31st August 2014 when his motorcycle was hit by a bus.

The Tribunal originally awarded Rs. 5,98,500/-, applying a multiplier of ‘13’ based on the mother’s age rather than the deceased's age.

The appellants challenged this calculation and the components of the award after a significant procedural delay involving a dismissed review application and a subsequent C.M.(M) petition.

1. Whether the multiplier for compensation should be determined based on the age of the deceased rather than the age of the dependents.

2. Whether the compensation components—specifically future prospects, funeral expenses, loss of estate, and consortium—required realignment with established Supreme Court precedents.

3. Whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay interest for the entire period despite significant delays by the claimants in pursuing the appeal.

The Court primarily applied the principles of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors v. DTC (2009) and National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017), which established that the age of the deceased must be the basis for the multiplier and fixed future prospects for a non-permanently employed person under 40 at 40%.

It further relied on Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan (2013) to reinforce the age-of-deceased multiplier rule and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur (2021) regarding the deletion of "loss of love and affection" in favor of "filial consortium".

The Court found that the MACT erred by using a multiplier of ‘13’ based on the mother’s age; according to Sarla Verma, the correct multiplier for the 15-20 age group is ‘18’.

Applying Pranay Sethi, the Court adjusted the financial components: adding 40% for future prospects (as the deceased was 18) and standardizing "loss of estate" and "funeral expenses" to Rs. 15,000/- each.

The Court deleted the Rs. 1,00,000/- award for "loss of love and affection," replacing it with "loss of consortium" at Rs. 40,000/- per claimant.

Regarding interest, the Court analyzed the procedural history, noting a nearly four-year delay between the dismissal of the review petition and the filing of the current plea. It determined that the Insurance Company should not be penalized for the claimants' lack of diligence; thus, interest was suspended for the period of delay.

The Court ordered that interest at 9% per annum on the enhanced amount is payable only from the date of the claim petition until the date of the original impugned award (23rd December 2016), and then from the date of the High Court's order until the deposit. The enhanced amount must be deposited within six weeks for equal release to the appellants.