Proven salary, less professional tax, governs dependency compensation with 40% future-prospects enhancement.

On 30 December 2020, Rajeshbhai Thakor, aged approximately 36 years, was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle when an Eicher truck bearing registration No. MP-09-GE-5119 allegedly came from the wrong side at excessive speed and, due to rash and negligent driving, collided with the motorcycle. Rajeshbhai sustained serious injuries and died as a result of the accident.

The claimants alleged that the deceased was employed as a labourer with Ashish Labour Organisation and earned approximately Rs.20,000 per month. They accordingly filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kheda at Nadiad. The Tribunal partly allowed the claim and awarded Rs.13,92,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization.

The claimants preferred the present appeal challenging the award solely on the ground of quantum. They contended that the deceased’s monthly income should have been assessed at Rs.13,251 rather than Rs.10,000, relying on salary slips and the evidence of the employer’s representative.

The insurer opposed the appeal, arguing that the deceased’s income immediately before the accident had not been proved because salary slips for November and December 2020 were not produced.

Whether the deceased’s monthly income should be reassessed above the Rs.10,000 per month determined by the Tribunal, on the basis of the salary records and oral evidence produced by the claimants?

Whether the compensation for loss of dependency should be recalculated by applying future prospects, deduction for personal expenses, and the appropriate multiplier?

Whether the claimants were entitled to enhancement of the total compensation and interest awarded by the Tribunal?

The Court applied the principles governing computation of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, including assessment of the deceased’s actual income, addition of future prospects, deduction towards personal expenses, and application of the appropriate multiplier.

Relying on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (16) SCC 680, the Court held that a 40% addition towards future prospects was applicable to a deceased aged 36 years.

Since the deceased was a bachelor, one-half of the income was deducted towards his personal expenses.

A multiplier of 15 was applied having regard to his age.

The compensation under the remaining conventional heads was maintained as awarded by the Tribunal.

The Court accepted the claimants’ evidence that the deceased was employed with Ashish Labour Organisation. The salary slips at Exhibits 42 to 44 showed earnings of Rs.13,251 in August 2020, Rs.8,173 in September 2020, and Rs.9,540 in October 2020. The August salary slip recorded 25 working days, while the subsequent slips reflected fewer working days. The Court inferred that the deceased had the capacity to work for 25 days per month and therefore treated the August salary slip as the appropriate basis for determining income.

After deducting Rs.200 towards professional tax, the monthly income was fixed at Rs.13,051.

Applying a 40% addition for future prospects, the monthly income became Rs.18,271. Since the deceased was unmarried, one-half was deducted for personal expenses, resulting in a monthly dependency contribution of Rs.9,136.

Applying the multiplier of 15, the loss of dependency was calculated at Rs.16,44,480. Adding Rs.96,000 for loss of consortium, Rs.18,000 for loss of estate, and Rs.18,000 for funeral expenses, the total compensation was determined at Rs.17,76,480.

After deducting the Tribunal’s award of Rs.13,92,000, the enhanced compensation amounted to Rs.3,84,480.

The Gujarat High Court enhanced the total compensation from Rs.13,92,000 to Rs.17,76,480, granting the claimants an additional Rs.3,84,480.

The interest rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization was maintained, including on the enhanced amount.

Respondent No.3, the insurer, was directed to deposit and satisfy the awarded amount within six weeks, after which the Tribunal was directed to disburse it to the claimants subject to due verification and deduction of any deficit court fee.

No order as to costs was made.