Pension entitlements constitute valid evidence for income assessment; 10% deduction for composite negligence in car-occupant fatality is legally impermissible.

On January 28, 2002, the deceased (Ms. Chandrikaba) was traveling as a passenger in a car driven by her husband when a truck collided with them near Sayla village.

The deceased succumbed to her injuries.

The original claimants (appellants) filed a petition under the Motor Vehicles Act seeking ₹10,00,000 in compensation, asserting the deceased was a housewife set to receive a monthly US Social Security pension of $438 (approx. ₹21,000) starting March 2002.

The Tribunal awarded ₹2,79,540 with 9% interest, determining negligence in a 90:10 ratio between the truck and car, and assessing the deceased's income at a nominal ₹2,000 per month.

The claimants appealed for enhancement.

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased by ignoring documentary evidence of a foreign pension.

2. Whether the deduction for personal expenses and the applied multiplier were in accordance with settled law.

3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in deducting 10% of the compensation based on the negligence of the car driver in a case of death of a passenger (composite negligence).

The court applied the principles of compensation assessment under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

It relied on *National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi* (2017) regarding the standardization of conventional heads (loss of estate, funeral expenses) and consortium.

Regarding composite negligence, the court followed *T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan* (2008), *Pawan Kumar v. Harkishan Dass Mohan Lal* (2014), and *Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.* (2015), which establish that in cases of composite negligence, the victim/heirs can recover the full amount from any of the joint tortfeasors.

The High Court found that the Tribunal committed a manifest error by ignoring Exh. 68—a letter from the U.S. Social Security Department—which proved the deceased was entitled to a $438 monthly pension; thus, her income was reassessed at ₹21,000.

As she was 62, no future prospects were added, and a multiplier of 7 was applied.

Since there were four dependents, the court corrected the personal expense deduction from 1/3rd to 1/4th.

Regarding negligence, the court held that as the deceased was a passenger, it was a case of composite negligence; therefore, the Tribunal's 10% deduction from the award was legally impermissible.

The court adjusted the conventional heads to align with *Pranay Sethi*, increasing funeral expenses and loss of consortium while slightly reducing the loss of estate.

The Court held that the respondents (insurers of both vehicles) are jointly and severally liable to satisfy the award without any deduction for the car driver's negligence.

The interest rate of 9% p.a. was maintained, and the Tribunal was directed to disburse the amount upon deposit.