Case Note & Summary
The present appeal arises from a judgment and award dated 28.12.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Rajula, in M.A.C.P. No. 863 of 2011, whereby the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded Rs. 2,26,000 with 9% interest. The appellants, being the legal heirs of the deceased Karimbhai Kureshi, sought enhancement of compensation. The deceased, aged 21 years, died in a vehicular accident on 10.09.2011 when his car was hit by a rashly driven ST bus. The claimants contended that the deceased was a driver earning Rs. 40,000 per annum, but the Tribunal assessed his income at Rs. 40,000 per annum without any documentary proof. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that in the absence of income proof, the minimum wage for a driver (Rs. 3,000 per month) should be adopted. Applying the principles from National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, the court added 40% future prospects, applied multiplier 18 as per Sarla Verma v. DTC, deducted 50% for personal expenses (since the deceased was a bachelor), and enhanced conventional heads to Rs. 15,000 for funeral expenses, Rs. 15,000 for loss of estate, and Rs. 40,000 for loss of consortium. The total compensation was recalculated at Rs. 4,98,400, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition. The appeal was partly allowed, and the award was modified accordingly.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Compensation Assessment - Income Proof - The Tribunal erred in assessing the deceased's income at Rs. 40,000 per annum based on the claim petition alone, without considering the minimum wage notification for a driver which prescribed Rs. 3,000 per month - Held that in the absence of concrete evidence, the minimum wage rate should be adopted (Paras 5-6). B) Motor Accident Claims - Future Prospects - Deceased aged 21 years - Following the principles in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 40% addition for future prospects is warranted for a self-employed person below 40 years - Held that the Tribunal's failure to add future prospects was erroneous (Paras 7-8). C) Motor Accident Claims - Multiplier - Deceased aged 21 years - As per Sarla Verma v. DTC, the appropriate multiplier is 18 - Held that the Tribunal's use of multiplier 15 was incorrect (Paras 9-10). D) Motor Accident Claims - Deduction for Personal Expenses - Deceased was a bachelor - Deduction of 50% towards personal expenses is applicable as per Sarla Verma - Held that the Tribunal's deduction of 1/3rd was erroneous (Paras 11-12). E) Motor Accident Claims - Conventional Heads - The Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,000 for funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000 for loss of estate - Following Pranay Sethi, these amounts are enhanced to Rs. 15,000 and Rs. 15,000 respectively, with Rs. 40,000 for loss of consortium - Held that the claimants are entitled to these conventional amounts (Paras 13-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was just and proper, particularly regarding the assessment of income, future prospects, multiplier, and deduction for personal expenses.
Final Decision
The appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified. The appellants are entitled to total compensation of Rs. 4,98,400 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced amount within eight weeks.
Law Points
- Motor Accident Claims
- Compensation Assessment
- Income Proof
- Future Prospects
- Multiplier
- Deduction for Personal Expenses
- Interest Rate
