Unsubstantiated wage claims and allowances cannot determine a deceased’s income for compensation.

Ajay Patel died following a road accident on 16 January 2023, when the motorcycle on which he was travelling was struck by a scooter allegedly driven rashly and negligently.

His wife, minor daughter, and parents brought a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Tribunal assessed Ajay’s monthly income at ₹24,000, added 40% for future prospects, applied a one-fourth deduction for personal expenses and a multiplier of 17, and awarded ₹53,68,800 against the insurer.

The claimants appealed seeking enhancement, while the insurer challenged the income assessment and multiplier-related findings.

1. Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of the deceased’s monthly income at ₹24,000 was supported by the evidence, including the claimed daily food allowance.

2. Whether the deceased’s age, future-prospects addition, personal-expense deduction, and multiplier were correctly determined.

3. What compensation was payable to the claimants on the evidence and applicable principles.

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for an appeal against a Claims Tribunal award, while Section 166 provides the basis for a claim arising from a motor-vehicle accident.

In assessing compensation, the Court applied National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, on future prospects and conventional heads; Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, on personal-expense deductions and multiplier selection; and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130, on consortium.

Income must be assessed from the evidence on record; where the asserted employment, wage, or allowance is not reliably established, the Court may determine a reasonable income from the available material.

The employer’s testimony and attendance records supported Ajay’s work as a supervisor, but the record did not reliably establish that he earned ₹24,000 monthly or received a ₹200 daily food allowance: the wage certificate lacked an identifiable company registration number, the employer’s authority to issue it was unclear, and the attendance records did not show work for a full 30 days each month.

The Court therefore fixed monthly income at ₹18,000 and excluded the allowance.

It declined to interfere with the Tribunal’s finding that Ajay was 28 years old, noting that this age appeared in the claim petition and relevant inquest and post-mortem documents, and that the insurer had not contested it in its written statement or during evidence.

Applying 40% future prospects, a one-fourth deduction, and multiplier 17, the Court calculated loss of dependency at ₹38,55,600, then added ₹18,000 each for loss of estate and funeral expenses, and ₹48,000 consortium for each of the four claimants.

The award was modified to reduce compensation from ₹53,68,800 to ₹40,83,600; the remaining terms of the Tribunal’s award were left unchanged.