Notional income must reflect the accident year and the deceased’s dependent family circumstances.

The claimants—the deceased’s wife, two minor sons and parents—sought compensation for his death in a collision between his motorcycle and a State Transport Corporation bus on 14 August 2024.

They claimed he worked as an Ekart delivery worker and earned ₹35,000 per month, but produced no proof of income.

The Tribunal found the bus driver negligent and awarded ₹37,47,000, calculating dependency on a notional monthly income of ₹18,300, with 40% future prospects, a one-fourth deduction for personal expenses and a multiplier of 15.

The claimants appealed for enhancement.

Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of the deceased’s notional monthly income at ₹18,300 required enhancement in the absence of documentary proof of earnings

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal required modification on that basis

Under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, an aggrieved claimant may appeal an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

In assessing dependency compensation, the court applied the principles in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 (SC), and National Insurance Co. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (2) TNMAC 609 (SC), including the application of future prospects, a deduction for the deceased’s personal and living expenses, and the appropriate multiplier.

The deceased’s age was found to be 38, and his claimed income of ₹35,000 per month was unsupported by documentary evidence.

Nevertheless, considering the accident occurred in 2024 and that his wife, two minor children and parents depended on him, the Court held that the Tribunal’s notional income of ₹18,300 was too low and fixed it at ₹21,000 per month.

It retained the 40% addition for future prospects, one-fourth deduction and multiplier of 15, and left the other heads of compensation unchanged.

The judgment directed deposit of the enhanced amount, less sums already deposited, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the claim petition date until deposit, within eight weeks; the claimants were not entitled to interest for the default period.

Any deficit court fee on the enhanced compensation was to be paid by the claimants, and disbursement was to follow the Tribunal’s order.

No costs were awarded.