Motor Vehicles – Motor Accident Claim – 20 year old son of appellant died in an accident – Claims Tribunal (MACT) adopted income of the deceased to be Rs.6,000/-p.m – It applied a multiplier of 11 on the basis of the age of the parents of the deceased and granted compensation of Rs.4,31,000/- – High Court declined to interfere with the award of the Tribunal – On appeal, held: Tribunal gave cogent reasons for declining claim of the appellant that deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month – Correct multiplier would be 17 based on the age of the deceased and an addition of 40% towards future prospects is also warranted – Loss of dependency is Rs 8,56,800/- – Appellant also entitled to Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate and a further Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses – Accordingly, appellant granted total compensation of Rs 8,86,800/- with interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition before MACT till realization.
The appellant no.1’s son who was aged 20 years, died in an accident after a truck dashed against his motor cycle. Appellant filed claim before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT). The Tribunal declined to accept the income certificates produced by the appellant in support of his claim that his son had a monthly earning of Rs.15,000/and instead took the income to be Rs.8,000/-. Applying a multiplier of 11 on the basis of the age of the parents of the deceased, it granted compensation of Rs.4,31,000/-. In appeal, the High Court declined to interfere with the award of the Tribunal. Hence, the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Tribunal gave cogent reasons for declining to accept the income certificates which were relied upon by the father of the deceased. No witnesses were examined on behalf of the companies which were alleged to have issued the certificates to prove the certificates. Evidently there was a failure to establish that the deceased, who was a student pursuing his C.A. was in receipt of a monthly income of Rs 15,000/-. Hence, the assessment of income by the Tribunal cannot be faulted. [Para 6][286-C-D]
1.2 However, there is merit in the submission which has been urged on behalf of the appellants that the Tribunal failed to apply the correct multiplier and erred in not granting the benefit of future prospects in computing the income of the deceased and the loss of dependency. Having regard to the judgment delivered by the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in the cases of Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma the correct multiplier should be 17 having regard to the age of the deceased and an addition of 40 per cent towards future prospects would also be warranted. On this basis and since the deceased was a bachelor, the loss of dependency would work out to Rs 8,56,800/-. The appellants would be entitled to an amount of Rs 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs 15,000/- towards funeral expenses. The award of compensation accordingly stands quantified at Rs 8,86,800/-. The appellants are allowed interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of the filing of the petition before the M.A.C.T. till realization. [Para 7][286-D-G] National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 13 SCALE 12; Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 21 : [2009] 5 SCR 1098 – followed.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
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.