P&H HC Raises Crash Compensation For 62-Year-Old UK Bookkeeper’s Family From ₹4.87 Lakh To ₹17.9 Lakh

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of income, future prospects, personal-expense deductions and multipliers in the three death claims required correction.

The court held

The appeals were allowed.

It also directed

In FAO No. 5266 of 2003, total compensation was recalculated at Rs.15,01,255, an enhancement of Rs.7,66,255; in FAO No. 5267 of 2003, at Rs.19,13,338, an enhancement of Rs.9,78,338; and in FAO No. 5268 of 2003, at Rs.17,90,000, an enhancement of Rs.13,03,000.

In FAO No. 5269 of 2003, the claimant was awarded an additional Rs.15,000.

For the three death claims, interest on enhanced compensation other than conventional heads was set at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition; interest on the enhanced conventional heads was payable from August 2017.

For the injury claim, interest at 7.5% per annum was payable from the date of the claim petition.

Apportionment and liability remained as determined by the Tribunal.

01Facts

The appeals arose from a common award dated 12 August 2003 concerning a motor-vehicle accident on 14 December 1998.

¶ 1

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchkula, found the respondents’ driver negligent; no respondent challenged that finding.

¶ 1

The claimants appealed only on quantum: three appeals concerned deaths, and the fourth concerned injuries suffered by Brahm Datt Bhanot.

¶ 2

For the death claims, the Tribunal had assessed compensation using the deceased persons’ incomes, deductions and multipliers that the claimants contended were incorrect; the claims included income-tax returns for the two self-employed deceased and evidence of the third deceased’s part-time bookkeeping income and pension.

¶ 4–6, 14, 16, 23, 25

In the injury claim, the Tribunal had awarded a lump sum of Rs.15,000; the claimant had evidence of hospitalisation and a Rs.350 treatment bill, but no proof of disability.

¶ 30–31

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of income, future prospects, personal-expense deductions and multipliers in the three death claims required correction.

¶ 5–10, 15–20, 24–29

ii.2. Whether the claimants in the death cases were entitled to additional compensation under conventional heads, including consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate.

¶ 5, 11, 20, 28

iii.3. Whether the compensation awarded for Brahm Datt Bhanot’s injuries was inadequate in light of the evidence of his injuries and treatment.

¶ 31

03Law Applied

The Court relied on Rashmirekha Tripathy v. The Branch Manager (Legal Claims), Sriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2026 INSC 661, for assessing a self-employed person’s income by averaging three years’ income-tax returns where income fluctuates.

¶ 7

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, for adding future prospects and awarding conventional heads; and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, for deductions towards personal and living expenses and selection of the multiplier by age.

¶ 9, 17–20, 26

The Court applied a 25% future-prospects addition to the deceased persons aged 40 and 42, but none to the deceased aged 62; it applied a one-third deduction for personal expenses in each death claim.

¶ 9, 18, 26

It also referred to the pending reference in Hasina Yasmin v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2919, concerning the quantum under conventional heads.

¶ 11, 20, 28

04Reasoning

For the claims arising from the deaths of Kusum Bagroy and Satish Bagroy, the Court found that the Tribunal had not used the average of the three filed returns.

¶ 7, 17

It assessed annual income at Rs.1,14,501 and Rs.1,58,000 respectively, added 25% for future prospects, deducted one-third for personal expenses, and applied multipliers of 15 and 14, respectively, based on the deceased persons’ ages.

¶ 7–10, 17–19

For Vijay Bhanot, aged 62, the Court retained monthly income of Rs.30,000 based on the evidence of bookkeeping income and pension, made no future-prospects addition, deducted one-third, and applied a multiplier of 7.

¶ 25–27

It then awarded the applicable conventional sums, while reserving the claimants’ liberty to seek any further amount if the Supreme Court answered the Hasina Yasmin reference in their favour.

¶ 11, 20, 28

For Brahm Datt Bhanot, the absence of proof of disability and the limited treatment evidence led the Court to treat the injuries as simple, but to award additional sums for treatment-related expenses, pain and suffering, and loss of income during treatment.

¶ 31