IMPORTANT POINT
In fatal motor accidents addition of notional income of deceased towards future prospects of deceased is integral component of compensation.

JUDGMENT :

ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellants before us are the claimants in an action for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (1988 Act). An accident had occurred on 28th February 2011 at about 10:45 A.M. which resulted in death of one Bala Babitha, a 37 year old lady, and caused injuries to her husband and her minor daughter. The first appellant is the husband of the deceased. The second and the third appellants are their children, who were minors by age at the point of time the accident occurred. The fourth appellant is the mother of the deceased. The first appellant and the third appellant alongwith the deceased were travelling in an auto rickshaw from Velachery to Adambakkam in the city of Chennai, which was hit by a vehicle (bearing registration no. TN-04-W-6189). The respondent no. 1 was the owner of that vehicle. The second respondent is the insurance company, whose policy covered the offending vehicle.

3. Claim was lodged by the appellants under Section 166 of the 1988 Act before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai (the Tribunal). Before the Tribunal, rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle was proved, and that finding was not upset in appeal by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in its judgment delivered on 27th February 2018. The present appeals arise from that judgment. The Tribunal awarded compensation in favour of the appellant no. 1 for a sum of Rs. 4,77,100/-. The minor daughter (appellant no. 3) of the deceased and the first appellant was awarded compensation of Rs. 2,06,000/-. The quantum of compensation on account of death of said Bala Babitha was computed by the Tribunal to be of Rs. 36,92,350/-. Monthly income of the deceased was calculated as onethird of her husband’s income. The Tribunal found the husband’s income to be Rs. 78,700/- per month. This finding of monthly income of the husband was not disturbed by the High Court. The compensation amount was to carry an interest of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim, till the date of deposit. Deposit of the awarded sum was directed to be made within two months from the date of the award.

4. Both the insurance company and the appellants preferred separate appeals in respect of sums awarded as compensation in relation to the deceased and the injured victims. The High Court reduced the sum awarded as compensation in respect of the first appellant to Rs. 3,41,000/-. As regards the third appellant, award of Rs. 2,06,000/- as compensation was retained. Compensation awarded to the family of the deceased victim was modified and reduced to Rs. 32,82,090/- by the High Court. The Tribunal had quantified compensation for the surviving members of the family of deceased on her notional income calculated on the basis of her husband’s income, following a judgment of this Court delivered in the case of Arun Kumar Agrawal and Another vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others, (2010) 9 SCC 218. The High Court, however, considered her salary in a job she was engaged in three years back to be the basis for quantifying the pecuniary loss to be awarded to the surviving members of her family. Both the Tribunal and the High Court had applied the multiplier principle to arrive at the figure of pecuniary loss. Before us, arguments have been advanced on the point of reduction of compensation to the family of the deceased victim and we shall confine our judgment to that issue only.

5. The heads under which award was made by the Tribunal quantifying the compensation to be paid on account of the deceased victim were:

6. While modifying the award, the High Court computed the compensation under