The calculation of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is based on the deceased's actual income, future prospects, and multiplier as per relevant case laws.

ORDER

Leave granted

1. The appellants are the original claimants in the Claim Petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The appellants claimed compensation on account of death of one Deepak Kumar in a motor accident. The first appellant is the father of the said Deepak Kumar ('the deceased'). The second and the third appellants are his brothers.

2. When the deceased was getting his motorcycle repaired from a shop on the left side of a road, a vehicle insured with the respondent - Insurance Company came in a high speed and gave a dash to the deceased. He sustained injuries, which turned out to be fatal. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal') accepted the case of the appellants that the deceased was employed in a private company at the salary of Rs.7000/- per month. The Tribunal added 50% towards future prospects of increase in earnings and deducted 50% on account of personal expenses of the deceased. By applying multiplier of 11 and by granting total compensation of Rs.60,000/- under the conventional heads of loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate, the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.12,36,000/- with interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum. There were cross appeals preferred by the appellants and the respondents. By the impugned judgment, the High Court held that there was no evidence to show that the deceased was getting a salary of Rs.7000/- per month. Therefore, the High Court took income of the deceased at Rs.3719/- per month being the approximate minimum wages payable at the relevant time. The High Court applied multiplier of 14. The High Court reduced the compensation to Rs.4,65,000/-.

3. In this appeal, the submission of the appellants is that there was evidence on record before the Tribunal to show that the monthly salary of the deceased was Rs.7000/-. Moreover, multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied as the age of the deceased was 21 years at the time of his death. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Insurance Company urged that there was no evidence regarding the income of the deceased. Therefore, the High Court was justified in taking the income of the deceased as equivalent to minimum wages.

4. After having perused the findings recorded by the Tribunal and the High Court, in our view, the High Court appears to be right in holding that there was no evidence adduced by the appellants to prove the income of the deceased. Therefore, the High Court took minimum wages at Rs.3719/-per month as his approximate income. Considering the fact that the deceased was employed with a private company in the year 2006, his income can be reasonably taken at Rs.4000/-per month. In terms of the decision of this Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., 2017 (16) SCC 680 40% will have to be added towards the future prospects of earnings. In the same decision, the Constitution Bench held that the multiplier must be calculated on the basis of the age of the deceased. Therefore, in terms of the decision of this Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., 2009 (6) SCC 121 which is confirmed in the aforesaid decision of the Constitution Bench, multiplier of 18 will have to be applied. On conventional heads of loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate, amounts of Rs.40,000/-, Rs.15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively will have to be granted.

5. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to compensation as under: