Facts
On 5 February 2018, Balu @ Babu Jadhav was a pillion passenger on a motorcycle that was struck by a Tata Tempo; he sustained fatal injuries.
Source reference: p. 3His family sought compensation, alleging that he worked as a mason and earned ₹450 per day.
Source reference: p. 4The Tribunal awarded ₹20,06,450, including loss of dependency calculated using monthly income of ₹13,250 and a 40% addition for future prospects.
Source reference: pp. 6–7The insurer appealed, challenging the income assessment and future-prospects addition.
Source reference: p. 7Issues
1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal required modification, particularly as to the deceased’s income and future prospects.
Source reference: p. 72. What order should follow.
Source reference: p. 7Law Applied
Under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, an aggrieved party may appeal a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award.
Source reference: pp. 2, 11Where a claimant produces no documentary proof of income, the Karnataka Legal Services Authority’s notional-income chart may guide the assessment; for an accident in 2018, the applicable monthly income was ₹11,750.
Source reference: p. 8Under National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, a self-employed deceased aged between 50 and 60 is entitled to a 10% addition for future prospects.
Source reference: p. 8The Court also accepted the multiplier of 11 and a one-fourth deduction for personal expenses in light of the deceased’s dependants.
Source reference: p. 9Reasoning
The Court found that the claimants had not proved the deceased’s income, so the Tribunal’s use of ₹13,250 per month lacked a basis and should be replaced by the applicable chart figure of ₹11,750.
Source reference: p. 8Because the deceased was self-employed and aged 53, the Tribunal’s 40% future-prospects addition was reduced to 10% under Pranay Sethi; the multiplier of 11 and one-fourth deduction were retained.
Source reference: pp. 8–9The Court left the Tribunal’s awards under the other heads undisturbed.
Source reference: p. 9The judgment contains differing figures for loss of dependency in its calculation and table; the operative award specifies total compensation of ₹14,46,575.
Source reference: pp. 9–11Holding
The appeal was partly allowed, and the Tribunal’s award was modified.
The claimants were held entitled to ₹14,46,575, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition until realisation.
Source reference: pp. 10–11The insurer was directed to deposit the compensation with accrued interest within eight weeks of receiving the certified judgment; apportionment, disbursement, and deposit were to follow the Tribunal’s order.
Source reference: p. 11No order as to costs was made.
Source reference: p. 11Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Motor Vehicles Act, 19881
Original Court PDF
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGERvsSMT. FAKKIRI BALU ALIAS BABU JADHAV
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
