The Tribunal’s 30% deduction was set aside, and the claimants’ compensation was enhanced.

The appellants, the deceased’s claimants, challenged the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kachchh at Bhuj’s award in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 303 of 2011, seeking enhancement of compensation.

They argued that the Tribunal had undervalued the deceased’s income, omitted future prospects, and wrongly deducted 30% of the decretal amount for the deceased’s alleged contribution to the accident.

The insurer defended the award as just and proper.

The High Court noted that the accident and the owner’s and insurer’s liability were not in dispute.

1. Whether the Tribunal had properly assessed the deceased’s income and the resulting loss of dependency, including future prospects.

2. Whether the Tribunal’s deduction of 30% of the compensation on account of the deceased’s alleged contribution to the accident should be set aside.

3. Whether compensation under the conventional heads required enhancement in light of the governing Supreme Court decisions.

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for an appeal against an award of the Claims Tribunal.

The Court applied the principle that compensation under the Act must be just, fair, reasonable, and based on a realistic assessment of the loss; the Tribunal must endeavour to award just compensation.

Relying on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the Court addressed future prospects and awarded Rs. 18,150 each for loss of estate and funeral expenses.

Relying on United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780, it awarded consortium of Rs. 48,400 to each of the four dependants.

The Court found that the Tribunal had not properly assessed the deceased’s monthly income and had failed to allow compensation for future prospects in accordance with Pranay Sethi.

It recalculated the compensation, including the conventional heads and consortium for four dependants.

The Court also accepted the claimants’ challenge to the 30% deduction, holding that the Tribunal’s finding requiring that deduction was erroneous and should be set aside.

On its calculation, total compensation was Rs. 15,63,258, against Rs. 5,54,400 previously awarded, resulting in an enhanced amount of Rs. 10,08,858.

The claimants were held entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs. 10,08,858, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition until realisation.

The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount with interest within six weeks of receiving the order; the Tribunal was directed to disburse the amount in accordance with the stated procedure, and the remaining directions of the Tribunal were left undisturbed.