Temporary private employment warrants a 25% future-prospects addition, not 30%.

Prasen Singh, aged 44 years, died in a motor vehicle accident on 4 October 2023 involving Truck No. CG-04-ND-9141. His wife and two children filed a claim petition against the truck driver, owner, and insurer. The Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of ₹15,94,000, assessing the deceased’s monthly income at ₹10,100 on the basis of minimum wages, adding 25% for future prospects, and applying a multiplier of 14.

The claimants appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement. They contended that the deceased was employed as a Maintenance In-charge with Arunoday Coal Agency and earned ₹25,000 per month, and that 30% future prospects should have been added.

The insurer disputed the income evidence, particularly because the salary ledger covered April–October 2024, whereas the deceased died on 4 October 2023.

The record included the agency’s registration certificate, appointment and promotion letters, salary records, and attendance registers.

Whether the deceased’s monthly income should be assessed at ₹25,000, rather than ₹10,100 as determined by the Claims Tribunal, on the basis of the employment and salary evidence produced by the claimants?

Whether the claimants were entitled to a 30% addition towards future prospects, instead of the 25% addition granted by the Tribunal?

The Court applied Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, governing appeals against awards of Claims Tribunals.

For computation of compensation, it relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, which governs addition for future prospects and conventional heads; Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, which provides the framework for deduction towards personal expenses and selection of the multiplier; and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, concerning compensation under conventional heads for consortium and related losses.

The governing principle was that compensation must be just and based on income proved by reliable evidence, with appropriate deductions, future-prospect additions, multiplier, and conventional compensation.

The Court found that the deceased’s employment with Arunoday Coal Agency was established through the testimony of the agency’s Project Manager and the appointment, registration, salary, and attendance documents.

However, the claim of a fixed monthly income of ₹25,000 was not accepted because the promotion letter appeared unreliable and the salary ledger contained inconsistent entries, including amounts substantially below ₹25,000; moreover, the ledger related to a period after the deceased’s death.

Taking the evidence cumulatively, the Court assessed the monthly income at ₹18,000 instead of ₹10,100.

The Court rejected the claim for 30% future prospects because the employer was a private establishment, the deceased’s employment was temporary, and employees could be terminated at any time. It therefore upheld the Tribunal’s addition of 25%.

Applying a one-third deduction for personal expenses and a multiplier of 14, the Court recalculated the loss of dependency at ₹25,20,000 and retained ₹1,80,000 under conventional heads, resulting in total compensation of ₹27,00,000.

The compensation was enhanced from ₹15,94,000 to ₹27,00,000.

After deducting the amount already awarded, the claimants became entitled to an additional ₹11,06,000, carrying interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application until realization.

The remaining terms of the Tribunal’s award were left undisturbed, and the Registry was directed to communicate the enhanced amount to the claimants in Hindi Devanagari, with assistance from paralegal workers where necessary.