One-fourth deduction for personal expenses is proper absent proof that major sons lived separately.

On 11 March 2021, Hirma Sodi was returning to Motguda when a trailer bearing registration no. AP 16 TE-3757, allegedly driven rashly and negligently by Respondent No. 5, struck him. He sustained grievous injuries and died during treatment; a criminal case was registered following the incident

His wife and three sons filed a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of ₹28,80,000. The Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Bastar Dantewada, awarded ₹23,14,672 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of application until realization and held the Insurance Company liable.

The Insurance Company filed an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, challenging only the quantum of compensation. Its objections concerned the assessment of the deceased’s monthly income at ₹15,000 and the deduction of only one-fourth towards personal and living expenses.

Notice to the driver and owner was dispensed with because liability was admitted to rest upon the Insurance Company.

Whether the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the deceased’s monthly income at ₹15,000 instead of ₹10,390 based on the applicable minimum wages notification?

Whether the deduction towards the deceased’s personal and living expenses ought to have been one-third, rather than one-fourth, because the three claimant-sons were major?

The appeal was governed by Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which permits an aggrieved party to challenge an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

Compensation must be assessed on the basis of the evidence establishing the deceased’s income, and an evidentiary finding that was not challenged before the Tribunal may be accepted as just and proper.

The deduction for personal and living expenses depends upon the number of established dependants and the evidence regarding their dependency and residence; the presence of major sons does not automatically require a one-third deduction where there is no pleading or evidence that they were living separately or were not dependants.

The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s assessment of monthly income at ₹15,000 because the claimants had led evidence regarding the deceased’s agricultural and carpentry work, and the Insurance Company had not challenged that evidence before the Tribunal. The Court therefore rejected the proposed substitution of ₹10,390 based on minimum wages.

It also upheld the one-fourth deduction. Although the three sons were major, the Insurance Company neither pleaded nor established that they were married, residing separately, or otherwise not dependent on the deceased. On the evidence before the Tribunal, the four claimants were properly treated as dependants, making the one-fourth deduction justified.

Consequently, no error in the computation of compensation was demonstrated.

Finding no merit in the appeal, the High Court dismissed the Insurance Company’s appeal and left undisturbed the award of ₹23,14,672 with interest at 6% per annum, for which the Insurance Company remained liable.