The judgment establishes the methodology for enhancing compensation in motor accident death claims by adjusting notional income based on profession and cost of living, applying future prospects, and utilizing the appropriate multiplier based on the deceased's age.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellants-claimants challenging the judgment and decree dated 24.07.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.2903 of 2013 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”), whereby the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.7,10,400/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization against the claim of Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of the deceased, Mohammed Shanu, in a motor vehicle accident.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants contended that the deceased was 24 years old and working as a barber, earning Rs. 8,000/- per month; the Tribunal erred in assessing the notional income at Rs.4,500/- per month and also failed to properly apply future prospects and conventional heads; and as such prayed for enhancement of compensation.

3. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal, in the absence of cogent evidence regarding proof of income, has rightly assessed the notional income and the compensation awarded is just and reasonable, requiring no interference.

4. As seen from the material placed on record, the accident occurred on 10.09.2013 when a TATA 407 vehicle bearing No.AP-15W-9317, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the backside of the motorcycle on which the deceased was a pillion rider, resulting in his instantaneous death. The Tribunal correctly concluded that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the crime vehicle.

5. So far as assessment of compensation is concerned, while the appellants-claimants asserted the monthly income as Rs.8,000/-, the Tribunal took it as Rs.4,500/-. Considering the profession of the deceased as a barber and the cost of living at the time of the accident occurred in the year 2013, this Court deems it appropriate to enhance the monthly income to Rs.6,000/-. Adding 40% towards future prospects as per National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi , 1(2017) 16 SCC 680, the monthly income comes to Rs.8,400/- (Rs 6,000 + Rs. 2,400). As the deceased was a bachelor, 50% of his income is to be deducted towards personal expenses. After deducting 50% (Rs.4,200), the monthly contribution comes to Rs.4,200/-. Since the deceased was 24 years old at the time of the accident, as per the decision in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation²(2009) 6 SCC 121, the appropriate multiplier is '18'. Thus, the annual contribution of the deceased is Rs.50,400/-, and using multiplier 18, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.9,07,200/- (Rs.50,400 x 18).Further, as per the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), the appellants-claimants are also entitled to Rs.91,000/- (Rs.70,000/- + 10% enhancement for every three years) under the conventional heads. Accordingly, the total compensation comes to Rs.9,98,200/- (Rs.9,07,200/- + Rs.91,000/- ).Accordingly, the total compensation comes to Rs.9,98,200/-.

6. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation from Rs.7,10,400/- to Rs.9,98,200/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The respondents are jointly and severally liable to deposit the compensation amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The remaining terms and conditions of the Tribunal shall stand unaltered. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.