Madras High Court
Transport, Maritime, and Aviation LawCivil Law

Notional income may be enhanced based on occupation and accident date despite lack of documentary proof.

Anitha Devi. M vs Kailasan

Madras High CourtJUDGMENT: September 29, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Notional income may be enhanced based on occupation and accident date despite lack of documentary proof.. Anitha Devi. M vs Kailasan. Madras High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The appellants, the deceased’s wife, two minor children and parents, sought enhancement of compensation for his death in a road accident on 1 May 2024.

Source reference: p.2–5

The Tribunal found the lorry driver negligent and held the insurer liable. It assessed the deceased’s monthly income at ₹18,000 in the absence of documentary proof, applied 40% future prospects, deducted one-fourth towards personal expenses and used a multiplier of 16. It awarded ₹38,81,800 in total.

Source reference: p.2–5

The claimants appealed, contending that the deceased worked as a Refrigeration Engineer and earned ₹30,000 per month.

Source reference: p.5
02

Issues

1. Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of the deceased’s monthly income at ₹18,000 warranted enhancement, given his occupation and the date of the accident.

Source reference: p.5–7

2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal required modification as a result of any revised assessment of income.

Source reference: p.7–8
03

Law Applied

Under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, an aggrieved party may appeal against a Claims Tribunal award.

Source reference: p.1

In calculating loss of dependency, the Court applied the principles in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, adding 40% towards future prospects, and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, applying a one-fourth deduction for personal expenses and a multiplier of 16 in this case.

Source reference: p.4–5, 7

Compensation under other heads may be maintained where the Tribunal’s award is just and proper.

Source reference: p.8
04

Reasoning

The Court accepted the Tribunal’s finding that the deceased was 35 years old and noted that the claimants had not proved the asserted monthly income of ₹30,000.

Source reference: p.6–7

However, considering that the accident occurred in May 2024 and that the deceased was working as a Refrigeration Engineer, it increased the monthly income from ₹18,000 to ₹19,000.

Source reference: p.6–7

Applying the 40% future-prospects addition, one-fourth personal-expense deduction and multiplier of 16, the Court recalculated loss of dependency at ₹38,30,400.

Source reference: p.7–8

It found no reason to interfere with the amounts awarded for consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses.

Source reference: p.7–8
05

Holding

The appeal was allowed in part.

The total compensation was enhanced from ₹38,81,800 to ₹40,83,400, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition until deposit.

Source reference: p.8

The insurer was directed to deposit the award, less any amount already deposited, within six weeks; disbursement was to follow the Tribunal’s directions, and there was no order as to costs.

Source reference: p.8–9
06

Acts & Sections Cited

1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Motor Vehicles Act, 19881

Madras High Court

Original Court PDF

Anitha Devi. MvsKailasan

Madras High Court · September 29, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment