Tribunal’s Determination of Notional Income and Global Compensation Held Just and Reasonable Despite Lack of Direct Evidence

The Appellant (Insurance Company) challenged the judgment and award dated January 23, 2015, passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT), Vadodara, in MACP No. 1638 of 2006

The Tribunal had awarded ₹10,22,600 with 9% interest to the claimants (respondents) for the death of a 50-year-old man in a 2006 motor accident

The Insurance Company appealed primarily on the grounds that the Tribunal’s assessment of the deceased's monthly income (₹6,000) was excessive and lacked direct documentary proof, as the agricultural land was in the father's name

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in determining the compensation amount, specifically regarding the assessment of the deceased's notional income and future prospects

The court applied Section 166 and Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, regarding claim petitions and appeals

It heavily relied on the precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others (2017) 16 SCC 680, which established standardized percentages for future rise in income—specifically, a 25% addition for self-employed individuals aged between 40 to 50 years—and fixed amounts for conventional heads such as loss of consortium and funeral expenses

The High Court reviewed the evidence and found the Tribunal’s determination of a ₹6,000 monthly income (₹4,000 from agriculture and ₹2,000 from animal husbandry) to be objectively sound, despite the land being in the father's name, given the father’s advanced age (74) and the deceased's active role in management

following Pranay Sethi, the Court noted that the Tribunal’s 30% addition for future prospects was incorrect and should be 25%, resulting in a revised prospective income of ₹7,500

While this reduced the dependency loss to ₹8,77,500, the Court observed that the conventional heads (consortium, funeral expenses) were under-awarded compared to current legal standards. Since the total "just compensation" remained similar to the original award and the claimants did not file a cross-objection for enhancement, the Court saw no reason to reduce the final sum

While technical adjustments were made to the calculations for future prospects and conventional heads, the final quantum was maintained. The appeal was dismissed. The Court ordered the release of the remaining 70% of the award amount, previously held in fixed deposits, to the claimants within six weeks