Just compensation in motor accident claims includes both pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses. For deceased persons in the 40-50 age group, a 30% addition for future prospects is mandatory if the multiplier used corresponds to that specific age group.

ORDER :

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.

Ghanshyam Vs. Amar Singh & Ors., S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1390/2019, decided on 13.05.2025

“12. In case of motor accidents leading to injuries and disablements, it is a well settled principle that a person must not only be compensated for his physical injury, but also for the non-pecuniary losses which he has suffered due to the injury. The claimant is entitled to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, and enjoy those things and amenities which he would have enjoyed, but for the injuries.

13. The purpose of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act is to fully and adequately restore the aggrieved to the position prior to the accident. This Court in Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. explained “just compensation” in the following words:

15. It goes without saying that in matters of determination of compensation both the tribunal and the court are statutorily charged with a responsibility of fixing a “just compensation”. It is obviously true that determination of a just compensation cannot be equated to a bonanza. At the same time the concept of “just compensation” obviously suggests application of fair and equitable principles and a reasonable approach on the part of the tribunals and courts. This reasonableness on the part of the tribunal and court must be on a large peripheral field.”

"9. The Tribunal, by recording a finding that the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years, applied the multiplier of 13 while calculating the compensation. The High Court, curiously while maintaining the multiplier of 13 as per the judgment of this Court in Sarla Verma, has reduced the compensation only on the ground that the deceased was aged 50 years 3 months on the date of the accident, as such the compensation is to be calculated on account of loss of dependency by granting future prospects at 15% but not 30%. So far as the application of multiplier of 13 by the Tribunal is concerned, the High Court has not interfered with the same. When the age of the deceased was considered in the group of 40 to 50 years, we are of the view that the High Court has committed error in granting only 15% towards future prospects instead of 30%. As per the judgments of this Court, primarily the age group is to be considered. Considering the age group as 40 to 50 years, when the multiplier of 13 is maintained by the High Court, there is no reason or justification for reducing the compensation by granting 15% towards future prospects. Though the learned counsel appearing for Respondent 1 Insurance Company has submitted that the compensation towards future prospects was awarded as per the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi3 but at the same time it is to be noticed that in the very same judgment in para 59.3, while considering the grant of future prospects, this Court has specifically said that the addition should be 30% if the age of the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years. For application of multiplier, the High Court has also accepted the age group of the deceased between 40 and 50 years. In that view of the matter, there is no reason for reducing the compensation by granting future prospects at 15% only."