The court adjusted the compensation for a motor accident death by correcting the deceased's age based on evidence, thereby modifying the multiplier and future prospect calculations to align with established legal standards for fair assessment of loss of dependency.

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.Rajasekar J.)

The Appeal has been filed by the Transport Corporation challenging the quantum of compensation awarded for the death of one Sreerangan in a road accident that had taken place on 08.07.2010, wherein the Tribunal had fixed the compensation as Rs.16,50,000/- alongwith interest.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the age of the deceased has been wrongly projected as 50 years without producing any proof for the age. The learned counsel further submitted that dependency of the claimants had not been properly established before the Tribunal and the Tribunal had fixed the compensation by arriving at a notional income, which is on the higher side and therefore, prays for modification of the same.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent claimant submitted that only after appreciating the materials available, the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the claimants are the dependents and the deceased was also aged about 50 years at the time of accident and there is no error or infirmity in the award passed by the Tribunal and prayed for confirming the same.

4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

5. To prove the age of the deceased as 50 at the time of accident, the claimants have not adduced any documentary evidence except relying on the post mortem report. The age mentioned in the post mortem report, Ex.P2 is on the basis of the age mentioned in the FIR, which is marked as Ex.P1. Ex.P1 was also lodged immediately after the accident. Since the claimants have not produced any proof for the age of the deceased, this court is constrained to anlyse the same only with the available materials and come to a conclusion with regard to his age.

6. So far as the age of the deceased at the time of accident, this court could find certain odd circumstances. Firstly, the accident having occurred on 8.7.2010, the age of the first claimant, wife of the deceased is mentioned as 45 whereas, the elder daughter of the deceased, who is arrayed as third claimant, was claimed to be 32 years. Further, the sixth respondent, who appears to have been impleaded, was shown to be at the age of 38 years. Of course, the Tribunal has disbelieved the claim in respect of the sixth respondent as legal heir of the deceased. However, a careful analysis of the ages portrayed by the first claimant-wife (45), third claimant-daughter (32) and the sixth claimant- claimed to be the eldest son (38), certainly, the claim that the deceased was aged about 50 years cannot be accepted.

7. Further, an analysis of Ex.P12 Voter ID card issued to the deceased reveals that the age of the deceased could certainly be more than 50 years at the time of the accident. Considering all such discrepancies, this court comes to a conclusion that the age of the deceased could be more than 50 years at the time of accident and it can, if at all be between 51 to 55.

8. In such circumstances, considering the age of the deceased, the proper multiplier can only be 11. Coming to the question of future prospectus, it can only be 10% in view of the principles laid down in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others. (2017) 16 SCC 680. The Tribunal has arrived at a reasonable notional monthly income of Rs.9000/-. In view of the above modification, the loss of income, after deducting 1/4 towards his personal expenses, would be Rs.8,91,000/- (Rs.9000+10% x 12 - 1/4 x 10).

9. Therefore, this court is of the view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of income alone requires certain modification in the ligh