Permanent government employees are entitled to an addition towards future prospects in motor accident compensation claims, and the standard reasonable rate of interest for such awards is 7.5% per annum.

This appeal is preferred by the appellants-claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 14.08.2012 passed in O.P.No.966 of 2008 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda (for short, “the Tribunal”), seeking enhancement of compensation.

The brief facts of the case are that the appellants-claimants, who are wife, son and parents of the deceased Gadupudi Madhan Mohan, filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.21,00,000/- on account of his death in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 30.07.2008 due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-24-V-9798. The Tribunal, upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a total compensation of Rs.9,75,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the present appeal is filed by the appellants-claimants seeking enhancement.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of the respondents.

A careful examination of the record reveals that the Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and Exs.A-1 to A-8 and Ex.X-1, has categorically held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending lorry. The said finding is based on cogent evidence including the testimony of eye witness (PW-3) and police records, and the same does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the liability fastened on respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally is confirmed.

Coming to the quantum of compensation, it is evident that the Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- and applied multiplier ‘15’, after deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses, thereby arriving at loss of dependency at Rs.9,45,000/-. Further, amounts were awarded under conventional heads, totaling to Rs.9,75,000/-.

The principal grievance of the appellants-claimants is that the Tribunal failed to add future prospects to the income of the deceased, though he was a permanent Government employee aged about 39 years at the time of accident.

On perusal of the record, it is clear that the deceased was working in a Primary Health Centre and was a permanent employee, as evidenced by Ex.A-7 salary certificate, Ex.A-8 service register and Ex.X-1 revised pay particulars. Therefore, the appellants-claimants are entitled to addition towards future prospects.In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that 50% of the established income of the deceased has to be added towards future prospects. Accordingly, the monthly income of Rs.7,000/- is enhanced by adding 50% towards future prospects, which comes to Rs.10,500/- per month (Rs.7,000 + Rs.3,500). The annual income would be Rs.1,26,000/- .Deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses, the contribution to the family would be Rs.94,500/- per annum. Applying multiplier ‘15’, the loss of dependency works out to Rs.14,17,500/-.Further, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under conventional heads are on the lower side. As per the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi , 1(2017) 16 SCC 680, the appellants-claimants are also entitled to Rs.91,000/- (Rs.70,000/- + 10% enhancement for every three years) under the conventional heads. In addition to that, the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards transportation at Rs.5,000/- appears to be just and reasonable and the same is accordingly confirmed. Thus, the total compensation payable to the appellants/claimants is re-calculated as Rs.15,13,500/- (Rs.14,17,500/- + Rs.91,000/- + Rs.5,000/-).

Coming to the rate of interest, as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Ma