Case Note & Summary
This first appeal was filed by the mother and minor brother of the deceased, who died in a motor vehicle accident on 27 August 2015. The deceased, aged 19 years, was travelling as a labourer in a Bolero Mahindra pickup vehicle that turned turtle due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver. A claim petition was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gondia, seeking compensation of Rs.33,74,000, asserting that the deceased earned Rs.350 per day as a labourer. The Tribunal, after recording evidence, assessed the notional monthly income at Rs.6,000 (Rs.200 per day) and applied a multiplier of 16, awarding total compensation of Rs.8,94,000 with 7% interest from the date of filing. Aggrieved by the quantum, the claimants appealed to the High Court, contending that the income should be taken as Rs.300 per day based on the oral evidence of the sub-contractor employer (PW2) and a salary certificate, that the applicable multiplier was 18 as per the Supreme Court’s decision in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, and that amounts under loss of consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses were incorrectly awarded. The main legal issue was whether enhancement was warranted. The appellants argued that the employer’s unchallenged testimony and the salary slip proved an income of Rs.300 per day, and that the multiplier for a 19-year-old should be 18. The respondents, the National Insurance Company and the vehicle owner, resisted, submitting that the employer was the deceased’s uncle and that no credible documentary evidence supported the higher income. They supported the Tribunal’s assessment. The High Court examined the evidence and held that the employer’s oral evidence had not been shaken in cross-examination and, relying on Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Varsha Rajendra Pache, ruled that documentary corroboration is not always necessary and oral evidence of an employer can be accepted to prove salary. Accordingly, the Court fixed the notional monthly income at Rs.9,000 (Rs.300 per day). It further applied the multiplier of 18 for the age group 15–20 years as mandated by Sarla Verma. On the head of loss of consortium, the Court agreed with the Tribunal that it was not payable because the deceased was unmarried. For loss of estate and funeral expenses, the Court, following National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, standardized the amounts at Rs.15,000 each, noting that while the Tribunal had awarded Rs.5,000 and Rs.25,000 respectively, the overall total under both heads remained unchanged. The High Court recalculated the compensation: annual income Rs.1,08,000, plus 50% future prospects (Rs.54,000), half deduction for personal expenses (Rs.81,000), multiplied by 18 (Rs.14,58,000), plus Rs.15,000 for funeral expenses and Rs.15,000 for loss of estate, yielding a total of Rs.14,88,000. Thus, an enhanced amount of Rs.5,94,000 was granted, with 7% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs, and the office was directed to work out additional court fee, if any.
Headnote
A) Motor Vehicle Accident Compensation - Assessment of Income - Oral Evidence of Employer - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The deceased was a labourer earning Rs.300 per day. The employer’s oral testimony and salary certificate were not shaken in cross-examination. The High Court held that documentary evidence is not mandatory and oral evidence of an employer can be relied upon to determine income, reversing the Tribunal’s finding (Paras 10-12). B) Motor Vehicle Accident Compensation - Multiplier - Age of Deceased - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The deceased was 19 years old. The Tribunal erroneously applied a multiplier of 16. Following Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, the High Court applied a multiplier of 18, as mandated for ages 15–20 (Para 13). C) Motor Vehicle Accident Compensation - Loss of Consortium - Unmarried Deceased - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The claimants sought consortium, but the deceased was a bachelor. The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s denial, holding that loss of consortium is not applicable to an unmarried deceased (Para 14). D) Motor Vehicle Accident Compensation - Funeral Expenses and Loss of Estate - Standard Heads - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Following National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, the High Court held that the amounts payable under loss of estate and funeral expenses are Rs.15,000 each, and adjusted the Tribunal’s award while maintaining the same total (Para 14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal was justified and whether any enhancement of such compensation can be granted.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed with no order as to costs. Enhanced compensation of Rs.5,94,000 (total compensation Rs.14,88,000) with interest at 7% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 07.10.2015. Office to work out additional court fee, if any.
Law Points
- oral evidence of employer can be sufficient to prove income without documentary evidence
- multiplier for age 15–20 is 18 as per Sarla Verma
- loss of consortium not applicable to unmarried deceased
- loss of estate and funeral expenses fixed at Rs.15
- 000 each as per Pranay Sethi
- future prospects at 50% for self-employed below 40
