Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Rameshbhai Dahyabhai Dantani, filed a First Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the judgment and award dated 24.08.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Panchmahals at Godhra in MACP No.572/2005. The Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition and awarded Rs.1,08,728/- with 7.5% interest per annum. The appellant, aged 20 years at the time of accident on 31.07.2004, was a vegetable vendor earning Rs.5,000/- per month. He sustained serious injuries when a jeep driven rashly by respondent no.1 hit him. The insurance company (respondent no.2) contested the claim. The appellant appealed on the ground of quantum, arguing that the Tribunal erred in not adding 40% future prospective income and in applying multiplier 17 instead of 18. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that as per the settled law in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, 40% addition for future prospects is applicable for self-employed persons below 40 years. Since the appellant was 20 years old, 40% should be added. Further, as per Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, the multiplier for age 20 is 18, not 17. The Court recalculated compensation: notional income Rs.2,400/- per month (unchallenged), plus 40% future prospects = Rs.3,360/- per month; annual income Rs.40,320/-; applying multiplier 18, total loss of income Rs.7,25,760/-. Adding Rs.15,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.15,000/- for medical expenses, Rs.10,000/- for special diet and attendant charges, total compensation Rs.7,65,760/-. The Court allowed the appeal, enhancing compensation from Rs.1,08,728/- to Rs.7,65,760/- with 7.5% interest from the date of petition till realization. The insurance company was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within eight weeks.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Compensation - Future Prospective Income - The Tribunal erred in not adding 40% towards future prospects for a 20-year-old claimant engaged in vegetable business, as per settled law. Held that 40% addition is warranted for self-employed persons below 40 years (Paras 8-9). B) Motor Accident Claims - Multiplier - Age of Claimant - For a claimant aged 20 years, the appropriate multiplier is 18 as per the Sarla Verma case, not 17. Held that the Tribunal's use of multiplier 17 was erroneous (Paras 8-9). C) Motor Accident Claims - Notional Income - In absence of documentary proof, Tribunal assessed income at Rs.2,400/- per month, which was not challenged. Held that notional income of Rs.2,400/- per month is reasonable (Para 8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Tribunal erred in not adding 40% future prospective income and in applying multiplier of 17 instead of 18 for a 20-year-old claimant?
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Compensation enhanced from Rs.1,08,728/- to Rs.7,65,760/- with 7.5% interest per annum from date of petition till realization. Insurance company to deposit enhanced amount within eight weeks.
Law Points
- Motor Accident Claims
- Compensation Assessment
- Future Prospective Income
- Multiplier Application
- Notional Income Assessment
