Rajkumar @ Raju Kachwha vs. Ankit Gop

Held

The Court held that the Tribunal committed a mistake in deducting only 1/3 for personal expenses, as 50% deduction is appropriate for a bachelor deceased. Regarding the income assessment, the Court found that the Tribunal erred in not relying on the mother's testimony and the documentary evidence (Ex. P-47 to P-65) which prima facie indicated the deceased was engaged as a vegetable vendor. The Court determined that the deceased's monthly income should have been assessed at least as per the minimum wages fixed for an unskilled laborer, which was Rs. 8,400/- per month on the date of the accident. With a 50% deduction for personal expenses, the monthly loss of dependency came to Rs. 4,200/-. Applying the multiplier of 18 and adding 40% for future prospects, the total loss of dependency was calculated as Rs. 12,70,080/-. This resulted in an enhancement of Rs. 2,79,936/- in the head of loss of dependency. Consequently, MA No. 595/2023 was partly allowed, and MA No. 1109/2023 was allowed only regarding the finding on personal expenses deduction, while the appeal for reduction of compensation was rejected.

Facts

Two appeals arose from an award by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Mandla. MA No. 595/2023 was filed by the dependents of the deceased, Arun Kachhwaha, seeking enhancement of compensation. MA No. 1109/2023 was filed by the National Insurance Company Limited, seeking a reduction of the award. The deceased, Arun Kachhwaha, aged 18, died due to injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident on February 14, 2021. The claimants alleged negligent driving by the car's driver, owned by one respondent and insured by the appellant insurance company. The claimants sought Rs. 71,75,000/- compensation, stating the deceased earned Rs. 25,000/- per month as a vegetable vendor. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 11,61,479/-, assessing the deceased's age at 20 years and deducting 1/3 for personal expenses.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in deducting only 1/3 for personal expenses of the deceased, who was a bachelor, contrary to the established legal principle of deducting 50% for unmarried individuals (Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988)? 2. Whether the Tribunal erred in not relying on the testimony of the deceased's mother and documentary evidence (Ex. P-47 to P-65) regarding the deceased's monthly income of Rs. 25,000/- as a vegetable vendor, and instead notionally estimating the income at Rs. 5,500/- per month based on the absence of GST and TIN numbers on the documents (Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988)? Arguments for the Appellants (Dependents): The dependents argued that the deceased's monthly income should have been assessed at Rs. 15,000/- and 40% should have been added for future prospects, leading to an enhancement of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Arguments for the Respondent (Insurance Company): The insurance company argued that the deduction of 1/3 for personal expenses was against the law, the award on conventional heads was excessive, and the addition for consortium was not permissible. They also contested the claim on the grounds of breach of policy conditions.