Proved employment evidence warrants reassessment of income and consequential enhancement of dependency compensation.

On 17 January 2014, Chirag Govindbhai Patel was travelling on a motorcycle from Bharuch towards Jagadiya with his friends when a truck, allegedly driven rashly and negligently from the opposite direction, collided with the motorcycle. He sustained grievous injuries and died.

His legal representatives filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Rural), being MACP No. 1625 of 2014. The Tribunal partly allowed the claim and awarded ₹11,19,100 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing until realization.

The claimants challenged the award before the High Court, confined to the quantum of compensation.

Under National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (16) SCC 680, the deceased’s established income was to be increased by 40% towards future prospects, and the conventional amounts for loss of estate and funeral expenses were to be suitably quantified at ₹18,150 each.

Applying the dependency principles, 50% of the deceased bachelor’s income was deductible towards personal expenses, and the multiplier of 17 was applicable based on his age of approximately 26 years.

Under Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram, 2018 (18) SCC 130, the deceased’s parents were entitled to compensation for loss of consortium, while the brother was not awarded consortium compensation.

The Court also maintained the Tribunal’s award under other expenses and the interest rate of 9% per annum.

The Court found that the claimants’ evidence sufficiently established that the deceased worked for M/s. V-well Advertisement Company and earned ₹10,000 per month. This was supported by the affidavit of his father, the testimony of Kaushal Dilipbhai Shah, and the FIR; consequently, the Tribunal’s assessment of ₹7,000 per month was held to be a manifest error.

Since the deceased was approximately 26 years old, 40% was added for future prospects, resulting in a monthly income of ₹14,000. As he was a bachelor, 50% was deducted for personal expenses, leaving ₹7,000 per month for dependency. Applying the multiplier of 17, the loss of dependency was calculated at ₹14,28,000.

The Court further enhanced loss of estate and funeral expenses to ₹18,150 each, awarded ₹96,800 towards consortium to both parents, and maintained ₹9,500 towards other expenses, resulting in total compensation of ₹15,70,600.

Respondent No. 2–insurance company was directed to deposit the additional amount with interest within six weeks of receiving the order. The Tribunal was directed to disburse the compensation after due verification and deduction of any deficit court fee, if applicable. No order as to costs.