Where income is unproved, compensation must be assessed using Karnataka Legal Services Authority notional-income guidelines.

On 22 January 2021, Bhimangouda Biradar was a pillion rider on a motorcycle that collided with a NWKRTC bus near Chikalki Cross on the Vijaypur–Jamakhandi road. He died from his injuries. His dependants sought compensation, alleging that the bus driver’s rash and negligent driving caused the accident; the Corporation disputed negligence and the deceased’s income.

The MACT awarded ₹28,53,000. The Corporation appealed, challenging the compensation, particularly the Tribunal’s assessment of the deceased’s monthly income at ₹15,000.

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive, including whether the deceased’s income had been assessed correctly.

What order should follow from the Court’s determination of the compensation payable.

In an appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the High Court may review the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Where income is not proved by evidence, the Court may assess notional income by reference to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority guidelines; for 2021, the applicable monthly income was ₹14,250.

Applying National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, future prospects for a deceased aged 31 were calculated at 40%, and conventional heads were increased by 10%. The Court also applied a one-third deduction for personal expenses, a multiplier of 16, and consortium of ₹40,000 for each of three dependants.

The accident was not in dispute, but the claimants had produced no documentary proof of the deceased’s income. The Tribunal therefore should have used the 2021 notional-income guideline of ₹14,250 rather than ₹15,000.

Adding 40% for future prospects yielded ₹19,950; deducting one-third for personal expenses left ₹13,300 per month. Applying the multiplier of 16 produced loss of dependency of ₹25,53,600.

The Court retained the conventional heads, applying a 10% escalation to consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses, and calculated total compensation at ₹27,18,600.

Any excess amount deposited by the Corporation was ordered to be refunded; apportionment, disbursement and deposit were left in accordance with the Tribunal’s order.