Case Note & Summary
The appeal arises from a judgment and award dated 25.09.2018 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranebennur in MVC No.1201/2017. The appellants, being the parents and sibling of the deceased Honnappa M.E., filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the death of Honnappa in a motor vehicle accident. The Tribunal partly allowed the claim and awarded compensation. Aggrieved by the quantum, the claimants preferred this appeal seeking enhancement. The deceased was a 22-year-old bachelor, working as a driver and earning Rs. 12,000/- per month. The Tribunal assessed the notional income at Rs. 8,000/- per month, applied multiplier of 5 based on the age of the claimant (46 years), deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses, and awarded Rs. 30,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs. 15,000/- for loss of estate, and Rs. 15,000/- for funeral expenses. The High Court found that the Tribunal erred in applying multiplier of 5 instead of 18 as per the age of the deceased. Following Sarla Verma v. DTC, the multiplier should be based on the age of the deceased. The court also corrected the deduction towards personal expenses from 1/3rd to 50% for a bachelor. The compensation was recalculated: Loss of dependency: Rs. 8,000 x 12 x 18 x 50% = Rs. 8,64,000/-; Loss of consortium: Rs. 40,000/-; Loss of estate: Rs. 15,000/-; Funeral expenses: Rs. 15,000/-; Total: Rs. 9,34,000/-. The appeal was allowed, and the compensation was enhanced from Rs. 3,77,000/- to Rs. 9,34,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit.
Headnote
A) Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - Multiplier - Loss of Dependency - Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The Tribunal applied multiplier of 5 based on the age of the claimant (46 years) instead of 18 based on the age of the deceased (22 years). The High Court held that the multiplier must be applied as per the age of the deceased, not the claimant, following the settled law in Sarla Verma v. DTC. The compensation was recalculated using multiplier 18. (Paras 5-7) B) Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - Deduction towards Personal Expenses - Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The deceased was a bachelor aged 22 years. The Tribunal deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses. The High Court held that for a bachelor, the deduction should be 50% as per Sarla Verma. The compensation was recalculated accordingly. (Para 6) C) Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - Conventional Heads - Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The Tribunal awarded Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate, and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses. The High Court enhanced these to Rs. 40,000/-, Rs. 15,000/-, and Rs. 15,000/- respectively, following the principles in Pranay Sethi. (Para 7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Tribunal was justified in applying multiplier of 5 based on the age of the claimant instead of 18 based on the age of the deceased while computing loss of dependency under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs. 3,77,000/- to Rs. 9,34,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit. The respondent-insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation within six weeks.
Law Points
- Multiplier to be applied as per age of deceased
- not claimant
- Loss of dependency calculation
- Deduction towards personal expenses
- Conventional heads under Section 166 MV Act
