The multiplier must be applied to the claimants’ dependency share, not the deceased’s personal-expense deduction.

The claimants sought compensation under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, following the death of Avtar Singh Negi, aged 76, after a scooter struck him on 19 July 2022.

He was receiving a monthly pension of ₹31,289.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded ₹5,40,580 with interest at 9%.

The claimants appealed, challenging the calculation of dependency compensation and the conventional heads.

1. Whether the Tribunal correctly calculated the deceased’s loss of dependency, including the income considered, deduction for personal expenses, and multiplier.

2. Whether the compensation under conventional heads required enhancement in accordance with National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi.

3. Whether the claimants were entitled to the Tribunal’s rate of interest and distribution of the compensation.

Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, provide the basis for a claim arising from a motor-vehicle death.

Under Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, the multiplier is selected by reference to the deceased’s age; the High Court read the table discussed in paragraph 42 as specifying a multiplier of 5 for ages 66–70, without directing a further reduction for older ages.

Under Pranay Sethi, amounts under the conventional heads—loss of estate, loss of consortium, and funeral expenses—are subject to a 10% enhancement every three years.

The Court also relied on its decision in Shriram General Insurance Company v. Maya Thapa and others concerning deduction of family pension.

The Tribunal had used monthly income of ₹17,279 after deducting family pension, and then applied the multiplier of 5 to the one-third personal-expense deduction rather than to the remaining two-thirds income.

The High Court held that the deceased’s full monthly pension of ₹31,289 should be used, that family pension should not be deducted, and that the multiplier must be applied to the balance after deducting one-third for personal expenses.

It rejected the insurer’s argument that the multiplier should be reduced to 3 for a deceased aged 77, finding no basis in the cited Sarla Verma passage for reductions beyond the stated multiplier of 5.

It also applied the 10% enhancement to the conventional heads.

The claimants were entitled to interest at the rate awarded by the Tribunal, with the compensation apportioned in the proportions set by the Tribunal.