In motor accident death claims for unmarried non-earning students, 50% deduction for personal expenses applies unless claimants prove family dependency on deceased's future income; multiplier based solely on deceased's age.

JUDGMENT :

M. M. SATHAYE, J.

1. Admit. Learned counsel for the Respondents waive service. Considering the narrow controversy involved, the Appeal is taken up for final disposal by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. The Appeal is filed by the Claimants challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 02.09.2024 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition (MACP) No. 15/2024 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Phaltan, Dist. Satara. By the impugned judgment and award, both the Respondents (Owner and Insurance Company) are held jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.13,28,300/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of claim application till realization.

3. Few facts are necessary for disposal of the Appeal are as under :

3.1. The Appellants are parents and siblings of deceased Parvani Sanjay Kakade. Claim is filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (‘M.V. Act’ for short). The Appellants filed the said application contending inter alia that on 01.01.2021 at around 2.30 pm, the deceased was traveling on her two wheeler from Phaltan to Pandharpur when the offending vehicle tractor (MH-45-S-3372) came from behind in rash and negligent manner and dashed the two wheeler. In the said accident, the deceased died on the spot. They contended that deceased was a bright student studying in second year M.A. and was a UPSC aspirant. They further contended that apart from excellent academics, deceased was also an all-rounder being an NSS Cadet, holding special knowledge about sanskrit language who has passed related examination. That she had also completed basic computer typing course and was studying in SP College, Pune. The Appellants made a claim of Rs.78,00,000/- as compensation contending that she would have earned at least Rs.50,000/- per month.

3.2. The Respondents including the Insurance Company filed written statement raising various defences. Considering the limited scope of argument, it is not necessary to elaborate on the defences raised. Suffice it to note that the Insurance Company contended that the claim made is exorbitant.

3.3. The learned Tribunal on appreciation of evidence arrived at the figure of Rs.25,000/- per month as income of the deceased, applied deduction of 50% towards personal expenses and applied multiplier of 5 along with future prospects of 40%. Accordingly the compensation figure is arrived at, as indicated above.

4. Learned counsel for the Appellants/Claimants submitted as under.

4.1. That the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is ex-facie incorrect and multiplier of 18 is applicable.

4.2. That 50% deduction is not appropriate because though the deceased was unmarried, the family size of the Appellants/Claimants is large including parents and three siblings and therefore, 1/3 deduction ought to have been applied. He relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashvinbhai Jayntilal Modi vs. Ramkaran Ramchandra Sharma And Anr. - LAWS(SC)-2014-9-96 and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Deo Patodi, Devendra Arora - LAWS(SC)-2009-5-35 in support of his submission about the deduction.

4.3. That non-earning deceased is an alien concept to the motor accident claim. That actual contribution in family expenses has no role to play so far as deduction on notional income is concerned. He further submitted that the Insurance Company is trying to carve out a separate class of Claimants by connecting the applicable deduction to the aspect of dependency. That such creation of class which is not as per settled position of law, is discriminatory and therefor