Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
JITENDRA KUMAR, J.
Ganesh Das S/o Akshuk Das – Appellant
Versus
Vinay Kumar Chaubay S/o Vishnu Chaubay – Respondent
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 651 of 2016
Decided On : 07-11-2025
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 173 – Enhancement of compensation for the death caused by motor vehicle – Deceased was 32 years of age at the time of his death and his monthly income was Rs. 4,500/- and the deceased was unmarried at that time – Claimants are his parents – Monthly income being Rs. 4,500/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 54,000/- with no tax deduction – After addition of future prospects to the annual income @ 40%, the annual income would come to Rs. 75,600/- as per law, deduction for personal living expenses has to made @ 33% and after applying the same, the annual income would come to Rs. 50,652/- which constitutes the multiplicand – The multiplicand will have to be multiplied by appropriate multiplier (which in the present case would be 16 in view of the age of the deceased), the total loss dependency comes out to be Rs. 50,652 x 16' = 8,1042/- the claimants are also entitled to get compensation under three conventional heads, namely, loss of Estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, which as per the settled law propounded in 'Pranay Sethi case', are at Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/-, respectively – Claimants being father and mother two parental consortium will have to be provides, which would come out to Rs. 40,000/- x 2 = Rs. 80,000/- – Total compensation payable payable would work out to be Rs. 9,20,430/- – Rs. 4,41,500/- having already been received, balance amount of Rs. 4,78,932/- directed to be paid by the Respondent No. 3 within two months, failing which 12% penal interest would be payable. (Paras 15 to 22)
Sarla Verma Vs. DTC, (2009) 2 SCC 770; Reshma Kumari Vs. Madan Mohan, 2013 (3) BLJ 19 (SC) : (2013) 9 SCC 65; Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mandala Yadagari Goud, (2019) 5 SCC 554; National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680; Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130; United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur, 2020 (5) BLJ 124 (SC) : (2021) 11 SCC 780—Relied.
This case involves a claim for compensation filed by the parents of Munna Kumar @ Munna Das, who died in a motor vehicle accident involving a bus. The accident occurred on September 11, 2013, due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus, resulting in the deceased's death at the age of 32. The deceased was unmarried and engaged in a business of ice-cream and cultivation, earning approximately Rs. 4,500 per month. The insurance policy covering the vehicle was valid at the time of the accident, and the insurance company was held liable to pay compensation.
The tribunal initially awarded a sum of Rs. 4,41,500 with interest, based on an assessed monthly income and standard calculation methods, including deductions for personal expenses and applying a multiplier according to the deceased’s age. The tribunal also awarded conventional heads of compensation for loss of estate, parental consortium, and funeral expenses.
The appellants, the deceased’s parents, challenged the quantum of compensation, seeking an increase. The court reviewed the principles for calculating just compensation, emphasizing the importance of including future prospects in the income assessment, applying appropriate deductions for personal expenses, and selecting the correct multiplier based on age. It also reaffirmed the standard amounts for conventional heads such as loss of estate, loss of parental consortium, and funeral expenses.
The court ultimately adjusted the calculation by adding future prospects to the deceased’s income, applying a suitable multiplier, and awarding additional amounts under conventional heads. The revised total compensation was determined to be Rs. 9,20,432/-. Since the insurance company had already paid Rs. 4,41,500, the remaining balance of Rs. 4,78,932 was directed to be paid within two months, with interest in case of delay.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. compensation claim details and background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. trial findings on negligence and compensation. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. arguments regarding compensation calculation. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. legal principles regarding compensation. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. computation of compensation and breakdown. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 6. final order regarding compensation payment. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
JUDGMENT :
JITENDRA KUMAR, J.
1. The present Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the Appellants under Section 173 of MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 against the impugned judgment/award dated 10.09.2015 passed by learned Additional District Judge-I-cum-Motor Vehicles Accident Claim Tribunal, Vaishali at Hajipur in Claim Case No. 137 of 2013, whereby learned Tribunal has directed the Insurance Company, who is Respondent No. 3 herein, to pay compensation amount of Rs.4,41,500/- with interest @ 7% from the date of filing the claim petition, i.e. 25.10.2013 to the claimants/appellants herein.
2. The background facts of the case are that the appellants herein filed claim case No. 137 of 2013 stating that on 11.09.2013, one Munna Kumar @ Mannu Das met with road accident involving one vehicle i.e. bus bearing registration No. BR-05-P-1458 at 6:00 O’clock at Kharanja Chowk, Lalganj, on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus by the driver resulting into death of the victim Munna Kumar @ Munna Das on spot. The postmortem of dead body of deceased Munna Kumar @ Mannu Das was conducted and Lalganj P.S. Case No. 183 of 2013 was lodged on 12.09.2013 for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the INDIAN PENAL CODE .
3. Further case of the claimants/appellants is that the deceased was twenty years of age at the time of his death and was an educated man earning Rs.10,000/- per month by business of ice-cream and cultivation. The parents/claimants/appellants were dependent upon his income. The offending bus was insured by Respondent No.3, United Indian Insurance Company Limited vide policy no. 210282/31/12/02/00000527 dated 28.09.2012 which was valid at the time of accident.
4. On notice, the owner and the insurance company appeared, but the driver could not appear despite valid service of notice.
5. The owner of the vehicle and the insurance company contested the claim petition pleading that there was no negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle (bus). However, admittedly, the vehicle was insured by the insurance company. The quantum of compensation as claimed by the claimants was also contested by the Respondents.
6. After the trial, the Tribunal found that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and the deceased was 32 years of age at the time of accident and his monthly income was Rs. 4,500/-. It was also found that the deceased was unmarried at the time of accident. The learned Tribunal also found that the Claimants are entitled to compensation from the owner and driver of the vehicle jointly and severally and as the offending vehicle was found to be insured by the Respondent No.3, United India Insurance Company Limited, the learned Tribunal directed the Insurance Company to pay compensation to the Claimants, who are the appellants herein. However, no right to recovery has been given to the Insurance Company after payment of the compensation by it to the Claimants and as per statement of both the parties, the Appellants have already received total compensation amount from the Insurance Company and no appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company, or by the driver or owner of the vehicle.
7. As per calculation by the Tribunal, total compensation came to be Rs. 4,41,500/- payable to the appellants. While calculating the compensation amount, learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 4,500/- per month. As the deceased was found to be unmarried at the time of accident, his annual income was reduced by 50% towards personal expenses. Finding t
The court clarified that future prospects must be factored into compensation calculations for accident victims, aligning with established legal principles for just compensation.
Compensation for loss of dependency must include future prospects, the appropriate multiplier must reflect the deceased's age, and conventional heads should follow established judicial guidelines.
The court established that compensation in accident cases must reflect loss of dependency, age, and conventional heads as outlined in precedents, leading to a final compensation amounting to Rs. 5,40....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Rule 220-A(3) of the Rules of 1998 for determining future prospects and the use of the multiplier as per the Second Schedule to ....
The court ruled that the deduction for personal expenses of a bachelor is typically 50%, and the appropriate multiplier for compensation calculation is determined by age, affirming the principle of j....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
