Facts
The Appellants, legal representatives of the deceased Ramesh @ Monu, filed an appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) vide award dated 7th May 2018
Source reference: p. 1On 25th September 2015, the deceased (aged 21) was traveling in a car that had stopped to allow the occupants to relieve themselves; an offending vehicle coming from the opposite direction hit the car in a rash and negligent manner, causing fatal injuries
Source reference: p. 5, para. 12The MACT awarded Rs. 9,11,000/- with 9% interest
Source reference: p. 1The Appellants challenged the award on the grounds of incorrect multiplier, inadequate future prospects, and benchmark income
Source reference: p. 2, para. 2Issues
1. Whether the principles for calculating compensation (multiplier, future prospects, and consortium) as established in Pranay Sethi apply retrospectively to pending appeals
Source reference: p. 2, para. 72. Whether the compensation awarded by the MACT required enhancement based on the age of the deceased rather than the dependent
Source reference: p. 2, para. 63. Whether the plea of contributory negligence raised by the Insurance Company was sustainable in the absence of evidence
Source reference: p. 5, para. 11Law Applied
The Court primarily applied Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, emphasizing "just compensation" based on fairness and reasonableness
Source reference: p. 3, para. 15It relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017), which standardized future prospects (40% for deceased under 40 years) and funeral/estate expenses
Source reference: p. 2-4The Court followed Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) for the multiplier scale (18 for age 21-25)
Source reference: p. 2, 4Furthermore, it cited IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Anil Kumar Kaushik (2026) to affirm that Pranay Sethi principles apply retrospectively to appeals to ensure uniformity
Source reference: p. 2-4Reasoning
The Court found the MACT’s use of a ‘14’ multiplier (based on the dependent’s age) erroneous, holding that the deceased’s age of 21 years necessitated a multiplier of ‘18’
Source reference: p. 2, para. 6It corrected the omission of future prospects by adding 40% to the income based on Pranay Sethi
Source reference: p. 2, para. 5Regarding the Insurance Company's claim of a head-on collision and contributory negligence, the Court observed that the insurer led no evidence and failed to file a cross-appeal
Source reference: p. 5, para. 11The testimony of the eye-witness (PW-2) and the charge-sheet corroborated that the deceased's car was stationary when hit, negating any contributory negligence
Source reference: p. 5, para. 13-14The Court also expanded the consortium award to include both parents
Source reference: p. 5, para. 9Holding
The Court answered the issues in the affirmative for the Appellants, holding that compensation must be standardized per Pranay Sethi. The total compensation was enhanced from Rs. 9,11,000/- to Rs. 16,94,252/- (an increase of Rs. 7,83,252/-)
The Court directed the Insurance Company to deposit the enhanced amount with 9% interest per annum within four weeks. It ordered a lump sum release of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the claimants, with the remainder to be preserved in phased Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) to ensure long-term support
Source reference: p. 7, para. 18Original Court PDF
Johri Prasad & Anr.vsMohd. Mehraj & Anr.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in