SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Jhk) 1009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Runiya Bibi Wd/o Late Yunus Ansari - Appellant
Versus
Naresh Goswami S/o Late Puran Goswami - Respondent
M.A. No. 142 of 2014
Decided On : 05-02-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Arvind Kumar Lall
For the Respondents: Alok Lal, Santosh Kumar, Pran Pranay, Kehkashan Afsheen

The appropriate calculation of compensation in motor accident cases must consider age, future prospects, and the number of dependents when determining living expenses deductions and multipliers.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded under M.V. Act following an accident resulting in death of a skilled painter, with claimants arguing for adjustments in multipliers and living expense deductions. (Paras 1-5)

(B) Compensation determination - The multiplier should correspond with the age of the deceased and account for future prospects; living expenses deduction should reflect the number of dependents. Court upheld claims and recalculated compensation. (Paras 5-8)

Facts of the case:
The deceased, Yunus Ansari, aged 30, died in a motor accident on 13.3.2009, leaving eight heirs. The initial compensation of Rs. 5,50,000/- was contested for being insufficient.

Findings of Court:
The compensation was recalculated at Rs. 10,00,920/-, considering a monthly income of Rs. 4,000/-, a deduction for living expenses of 1/5th, a multiplier of 17, and future prospects of 40%.

Issues: Whether the Tribunal accurately calculated compensation considering the deductions and multipliers related to dependents and age.

Ratio Decidendi: The court acknowledged that future prospects and an appropriate deduction for living expenses significantly impact compensation calculations, affirming a total amount of Rs. 10,00,920/- for the claimants.

Result: Appeal allowed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the case (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. arguments regarding compensation enhancement (Para 5 , 6)
3. court's analysis and computation of compensation (Para 7)
4. final order and compensation award (Para 8 , 9 , 10)

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The claimants are in appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded to them U/s 166 of the M.V. Act passed by learned District Judge cum Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No.III, Giridih, in Title (M.V.) Suit No. 34 of 2009.

2. The claimants are the heirs and dependents of Yunus Ansari who died in a motor vehicle accident on 13.3.2009 when he was dashed by one Hero Honda Splendour Motor Cycle bearing registration No. JH-11E-4042. He was taken to hospital where he died during course of his treatment, leaving behind altogether eight heirs and dependents.

3. As per the case of the claimants, the deceased was aged about 30 years at the time of his death and he was a skilled painter and earning as Rs. 6,000/- per month.

4. Total compensation of Rs. 5,50,000/- was awarded taking the monthly income of the deceased to be 4,000/- per month and the living expense of the deceased was deducted by 1/4th and a multiplier of 15 was applied.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Tribunal has not taken into account the loss of earning under the head of future prospect. Since there were more than six dependents of the deceased, therefore, the living expense should have been deducted by 1/5th and taking the age of 30 years the appropriate multiplier should have been 17. The award of compensation under conventional head is also not as per the ratio laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 .

6. The learned counsel on behalf of the Insurance Company has defended the judgment and award of compensation.

7. I find merit in the case of the claimants for enhancement of compensation. In view of finding of facts regarding monthly income of the deceased to be Rs. 4,000/- the argument for enhancing the monthly income of the deceased is not accepted. However, the final compensation amount taking Rs. 4,000/- monthly income, 1/5th as deduction from the living expense of the deceased and multiplier of 17 for the age of 30 years of the deceased at the time of accident, and 40% as future prospect, will work out as under:

Annual Income of the deceased4000 x 12 = 48,000/-
Future Prospect @ 40 %48000 x 40% = 19200
By adding annual income + future prospect48000 + 19200/- = 67200/-
Loss of dependency 1/5 as the dependents are more than 667,200 x 1/5 = 13,440/-
67200 - 13440 = 54,760/-
By taking multiplier of 17 as the age of the deceased was 30 years at the time of accident.54,760 x 17 = 9,30,920/-
Conventional Head70,000/-
Total10,00,920/-

8. The Insurance Company is directed to make full and final payment of the compensation amount of Rs. 10,00,920/- ( Rupees Ten Lakhs Nine Hundred Twenty only ) along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization.

9. M.A. No. 142 of 2014 is accordingly allowed.

10. The statutory amount be remitted to learned Tribunal below to be disbursed/ adjusted to the appellants within one month from the date of this order.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top