17 July 2025 Motor Accident >> Family Law  

In a recent judgment, the High Court partially allowed an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, challenging the adequacy of compensation awarded in a fatal accident case. While the fact of the accident and the respective liabilities of the insurance companies were undisputed, the appellants sought an enhancement of the compensation awarded for the death of Pyarchand.

Background of the Case:

The accident occurred on January 23, 2016, when Pyarchand and his son, Kanhaiyalal, were traveling in a truck from Mandsaur to Shamgarh for labor work. The truck collided head-on with another vehicle, a Tata-407, causing the truck to overturn. Both Pyarchand and Kanhaiyalal sustained grievous injuries, with Pyarchand succumbing to his injuries.

The Claims Tribunal had initially awarded a total compensation of Rs. 6,12,000 for Pyarchand's death. The appellants, comprising Pyarchand's two sons, wife, and daughter, argued that this amount was insufficient.

Grounds for Appeal and Court's Reassessment:

The appellants raised several points challenging the Tribunal's assessment:

• Age of the Deceased: The Tribunal assessed Pyarchand's age as 50 years based on the post-mortem report, leading to a multiplier of 13. The appellants contended that their testimonies (AW-1 and AW-2) indicated Pyarchand was 40 years old, which would warrant a multiplier of 14.
• Court's Decision: The High Court upheld the Tribunal's finding on age, noting the lack of documentary evidence to support the appellants' claim and the scientific basis of the post-mortem report.
• Future Prospects: The appellants argued that even if the deceased's age was considered 50 years, future prospects should have been factored in, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi.
• Court's Decision: While not explicitly detailing an adjustment for future prospects based on the 50-year age, the court's overall revised calculation effectively addresses this.
• Dependency: The Tribunal deducted 1/3rd for personal expenses, considering Kanhaiyalal (a married son) as living separately. The appellants argued that despite being married, he was still part of the family and dependent, suggesting a 1/4th deduction for personal expenses.
• Court's Decision: The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's 1/3rd deduction for personal expenses, citing Kanhaiyalal's admission in cross-examination about living separately and working for his own family's maintenance.
• Income of the Deceased: The Tribunal assessed Pyarchand's notional income as an unskilled laborer at Rs. 5,000 per month. The appellants submitted that the minimum wages at the time of the accident (January 23, 2016) were Rs. 6,575 per month, as per State Legal Services Authority guidelines.
• Court's Decision: The High Court accepted this contention, revising the deceased's income to Rs. 6,575 per month based on the State Legal Services Authority guidelines.
• Loss of Consortium: The Tribunal awarded only Rs. 40,000 for loss of consortium to the deceased's wife. The appellants argued that all claimants (wife, two sons, and daughter) were entitled to consortium.
• Court's Decision: The High Court, relying on Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram, held that all four claimants were entitled to compensation for loss of consortium. Each claimant was awarded Rs. 44,000, totaling Rs. 1,76,000 under this head.

Enhanced Compensation:

Based on these modifications, the High Court recalculated the total compensation. The revised loss of dependency amounted to Rs. 8,54,750, leading to an overall total compensation of Rs. 10,63,750.

Since the Claims Tribunal had already awarded Rs. 6,12,000, the appellants are now entitled to an additional payment of Rs. 4,51,750. This enhanced amount will accrue interest at a rate of 6% per annum from the date of the application until its full payment. All other conditions imposed by the Claims Tribunal remain unchanged.

The appeal was thus partially allowed, providing significant relief to the claimants.

  Section 173, Motor Vehicles Act - 1988  

  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988