Headnote
AI-drafted · Editorially reviewed
The appellant insurance company challenged the judgment and award dated 8th January, 2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Ahmedabad Rural in MACP No. 1834 of 2014, which had partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs. 33,82,283/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. The appeal was confined to the issues of the multiplier of 9 adopted by the Tribunal for computing loss of dependency, the addition of 15% prospective income, the quantum of loss of consortium awarded to major children of the deceased, and the rate of interest at 9% per annum.
The deceased was a Government employee working as a Clerk in a Government Polytechnic College and was aged 57 years and 8 months at the time of the accident, being close to the superannuation age of 58 years. The appellant contended that a multiplier of '1' ought to have been applied given the imminent retirement, and that the 15% addition for future prospects was erroneous. The appellant also argued that consortium should be limited to the widow and that the applicable interest rate should be 5-6% in line with prevailing bank rates at the time of the accident.
The respondents-claimants relied upon Supreme Court decisions in N. Jayasree v. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2021 ACJ 2685, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC), and Sarladevi v. Divisional Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., 2014 ACJ 2391 (SC), contending that the Tribunal had correctly applied the multiplier and that split multiplier should not be applied as a routine recourse, and that 15% addition for future prospects is a thumb rule for deceased aged between 50 and 60 years in permanent employment.
Catchwords:
motor accident claim
compensation
multiplier
loss of dependency
future prospects
government employee
superannuation
split multiplier
loss of consortium
rate of interest
Motor Vehicles Act
© LegalFirms.in — Headnote is proprietary. Raw judgment text is in the public domain
per Section 52(1)(p) of the Copyright Act, 1957.
Full Judgment Text
```json
{
"title": "Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Nandaben Dineshbhai Dataniya",
"case_number": "R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4474 of 2024",
"side": "civil",
"date_of_judgment": "2025-09-04",
"bench": "Justice Nisha M. Thakore",
"reportable": true,
"parties_petitioner": "Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.",
"parties_respondent": "Nandaben Dineshbhai Dataniya & Ors.",
"result": "other",
"headnote": "The appellant insurance company challenged the judgment and award dated 8th January, 2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Ahmedabad Rural in MACP No. 1834 of
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools.
For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
From ₹167/month.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.
