Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a motor accident claim where the original claimants, legal heirs of deceased Kaushikbhai Dahyabhai Shah, sought compensation for his death in a collision between a motorcycle and a dumper truck on 14.06.2015. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.-III), Gandhinagar, awarded Rs.25,71,468 with 8% interest, holding the dumper driver solely negligent. The insurance company appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging only the quantum of compensation, not liability. The High Court examined the salary slip (Exh.35) and found that the Tribunal had misread it by taking the gross salary of Rs.29,244 per month, which included employer's PF contribution and other allowances, instead of the actual take-home salary of Rs.9,748 per month. The Court also noted that the deceased was 58 years old, so the correct multiplier as per Sarla Verma v. DTC is 7, not 9. Additionally, no prospective income addition is permissible for victims above 50 years as per National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi. The High Court recalculated the compensation: annual income Rs.1,16,976 (Rs.9,748 x 12), after deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses, loss of dependency Rs.77,984 per annum, multiplied by 7 gives Rs.5,45,888, plus Rs.70,000 for conventional heads (loss of estate, funeral expenses, loss of consortium), totaling Rs.6,15,888. The award was reduced from Rs.25,71,468 to Rs.6,15,888 with 8% interest from the date of petition till realization. The appeal was partly allowed.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Compensation - Salary Calculation - Misreading of Salary Slip - Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The Tribunal erroneously adopted the gross salary of Rs.29,244 per month from the salary slip (Exh.35) without deducting employer's contribution to PF and other allowances, whereas the actual take-home salary was Rs.9,748 per month. The High Court corrected the income to Rs.9,748 per month. (Paras 5-6) B) Motor Accident Compensation - Multiplier - Age of Deceased - Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The deceased was aged 58 years at the time of accident, hence the appropriate multiplier as per Sarla Verma v. DTC is 7, not 9 as applied by the Tribunal. The High Court substituted multiplier of 7. (Para 7) C) Motor Accident Compensation - Prospective Income - Addition for Aged Victim - Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The Tribunal erred in granting 15% prospective rise in income for a deceased aged 58 years, as no future prospects are admissible for victims above 50 years as per National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi. The High Court set aside the addition. (Para 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Tribunal erred in calculating compensation by misreading the salary slip and applying incorrect multiplier and prospective income addition.
Final Decision
Appeal partly allowed. Compensation reduced from Rs.25,71,468 to Rs.6,15,888 with 8% interest per annum from date of petition till realization. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Compensation calculation under Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988
- Salary slip interpretation
- Multiplier selection based on age
- Prospective income addition for aged victims
