Tribunal must include future prospects and per-capita consortium for all dependents in motor accident death compensation.

On May 1, 2003, Mr. Hempadam Rashmikant Katbaman died in a vehicular accident when a rashly driven truck (GJ-7U-8716) collided head-on with his car

The deceased was a 30-year-old running a dental laboratory

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Ahmedabad, in MACP No. 620 of 2003, awarded the claimants Rs. 10,61,932/- with 7.5% interest

The appellants (original claimants) challenged this award before the High Court seeking enhancement, arguing that the Tribunal failed to consider future prospects and awarded inadequate amounts under non-pecuniary heads

1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal required enhancement regarding future prospects and non-pecuniary heads based on established legal precedents

2. Whether the multiplier and deductions for personal expenses were correctly applied

The Court applied the principles of "just compensation" under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, specifically following the landmark judgment in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680, which standardized additions for future prospects (40% for self-employed individuals below age 40)

fixed amounts for conventional heads like loss of estate and funeral expenses

It further relied on Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130 to grant "parental," "spousal," and "filial" consortium to all legal representatives at Rs. 40,000/- each (adjusted for inflation)

The Court also followed Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121 regarding the multiplier of 17 for the age group 26-30 and the 1/4th deduction for personal expenses when the number of dependents is 4 to 6

The Court found that the Tribunal erred by not granting future prospects despite the deceased being only 30 years old. Applying Pranay Sethi, the Court added 40% to the established monthly income of Rs. 7,625/-, totaling Rs. 10,676/-

As there were five dependents, a 1/4th deduction for personal expenses was applied, resulting in a monthly dependency of Rs. 8,007/-. Using the multiplier of 17, the loss of dependency was recalculated to Rs. 16,33,428/-

The Court further determined that the Tribunal’s awards for consortium, funeral expenses, and loss of estate were "meager" and not in consonance with current judicial standards. Consequently, it awarded Rs. 48,400/- to each of the five claimants for consortium (totaling Rs. 2,42,000/-) and increased the funeral expenses and loss of estate to Rs. 18,150/- each

Respondent No. 3 (Insurance Company) was directed to deposit the additional amount within six weeks. The impugned judgment and award dated February 27, 2012, were modified accordingly