Reassessment of motor accident compensation based on bank-verified salary and enhanced conventional heads for dependents.

On January 15, 2017, the deceased, Jayprakash Ramashankar, was cycling on National Highway No. 8 when he was struck from behind by a tanker (Reg. No. GJ-12-AZ-9210) driven negligently by respondent No. 1.

The deceased succumbed to his injuries.

The appellants (legal heirs) filed a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Ankleshwar, awarded compensation on September 19, 2022, but assessed the deceased's monthly income at ₹12,000/- despite bank statements showing higher deposits.

The appellants sought enhancement of compensation regarding income assessment and conventional heads.

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in its assessment of the deceased's monthly income and future prospective income.

2. Whether the compensation awarded under conventional heads (loss of estate, funeral expenses, and consortium) was adequate under settled legal principles.

The Court applied the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, specifically Section 173 regarding appeals.

It relied on *Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation* [2009 (6) SCC 121] for determining the multiplier and deductions for personal expenses.

It applied *National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi* [2017 ACJ 2700] to establish standard amounts for conventional heads and future prospects.

Furthermore, it followed *Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram* [(2018) 18 SCC 130] and *Janabai v. M/s ICICI Lombard Insurance Co. Ltd.* [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 666] regarding the entitlement of each dependent to parental and filial consortium.

The High Court found the Tribunal's income assessment of ₹12,000/- unsupported by evidence, as the bank statement (Exh. 54) clearly showed monthly credits of ₹14,496/- from the employer.

The Court reassessed the monthly income at ₹14,450/- and maintained the 40% addition for future prospects since the deceased was under 40 years old.

Applying a 1/4 deduction for five dependents and a multiplier of 15, the Court re-calculated the dependency at ₹27,31,140/-.

Regarding conventional heads, the Court adjusted the amounts for inflation (10% increase as per *Pranay Sethi*) to ₹18,150/- each for loss of estate and funeral expenses.

Crucially, the Court held that all five claimants were entitled to ₹48,400/- each for loss of consortium, totaling ₹2,42,000/-, rather than the lump sum of ₹2,20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

The Court ordered the Insurance Company (Respondent No. 3) to deposit the additional amount of ₹4,88,440/- with proportionate interest within four weeks.

The Tribunal was directed to deduct any deficit court fees on the enhanced amount before disbursement to the claimants.