Multiplier for motor accident compensation must be determined based on the age of the deceased.

On October 18, 2011, Sandeep Chauhan was riding a motorcycle (HP33B-1697) with a pillion rider when they were struck by an offending bus (HP65-4420) driven by respondent No. 2

Both the rider and the pillion rider died on the spot

An FIR was registered under Sections 279, 201, and 304-A of the IPC

The deceased was 28 years old (erroneously recorded as 25 by the Tribunal) and employed as an Assistant Engineer on a contract basis, earning Rs. 18,000 per month

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), Mandi, awarded the claimant (the deceased’s mother) Rs. 14,60,600 with 7.5% interest

The Insurance Company appealed (FAO 254/2017) challenging the involvement of the vehicle and the 50% addition for future prospects

The claimant appealed (FAO 444/2017) seeking enhancement of compensation based on the correct multiplier and income tax deductions

1. Whether the offending vehicle was involved in the accident and if the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2

2. Whether the compensation awarded by the MACT was "just" regarding the calculation of age, multiplier, future prospects, and conventional heads

The Court primarily applied Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, noting it as beneficial legislation intended to provide "just compensation"

It relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, which mandates a 50% addition for future prospects for deceased persons below 40 years in public/contractual employment and established fixed amounts for conventional heads (funeral expenses, loss of estate, and consortium) with periodic 10% increments

It further applied Sarla Verma v. DTC to determine the appropriate multiplier based on the deceased's age and the 50% deduction for personal expenses of a bachelor

the principle of "preponderance of probability" was applied to prove negligence in summary proceedings

Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram was cited for the entitlement of parental consortium

The Court rejected the Insurance Company's contention regarding the non-mention of the vehicle number in the FIR, ruling that in summary proceedings under the M.V. Act, the testimony of an eyewitness (PW-3) and the principle of preponderance of probability are sufficient to prove involvement

The Court drew an adverse inference against the driver (respondent No. 2) for failing to testify

Regarding quantum, the Court found the MACT erred in taking the deceased's age as 25 instead of 28 (as per the matriculation certificate)

Based on Pranay Sethi, the Court added 50% to the monthly income (Rs. 18,000 + Rs. 9,000 = Rs. 27,000)

After deducting 10% income tax for the relevant slab (Rs. 14,400) and 50% for personal expenses, the annual dependency was calculated at Rs. 1,54,800

Applying the correct multiplier of 17 for age 28, the loss of dependency was revised to Rs. 26,31,600

Finally, the Court adjusted conventional heads (Funeral, Estate, Consortium) by adding a 30% increment (10% every three years since 2017)

It held that the claimant is entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs. 27,22,600 (up from Rs. 14,60,600) with 7.5% interest from the date of filing the petition until realization

The Insurance Company was directed to indemnify the award and deposit the amount within eight weeks