27 August 2024 Civil Appeals >> Civil & Consumer Law   |   Motor Accident >> Family Law  

In a recent judgment, the appellate court reviewed a decision by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Sangli, dated August 13, 2015. The case involved an appeal by the family of Sagar Gavade, a 19-year-old who tragically died in a motor accident. The appellants sought to enhance the compensation awarded by the MACT, challenging the tribunal’s judgment on several grounds.

Key Contentions of the Appellants:

The appellants, comprising the deceased's parents and brother, presented three primary contentions for the appeal:

1. Incorrect Multiplier Factor: The appellants argued that the MACT had used an incorrect multiplier of 13 based on the parents' age rather than the deceased's age. According to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, the appropriate multiplier should be based on the deceased's age. At the time of the accident, the deceased was 19 years old, which, according to the multiplier table, should have been 18.

2. Non-Consideration of Filial Consortium: The appellants contended that the MACT had failed to include compensation for filial consortium, which is a recognized head of compensation.

3. Omission of Future Prospects: The appellants also argued that the tribunal did not account for the loss of future earnings prospects, which is a critical component of compensation calculations as established in Pranay Sethi.

Court Proceedings and Arguments:

On January 7, 2023, the court issued notice to the respondents and aimed to expedite the disposal of the appeal. By August 19, 2024, the appeal was set for final hearing. Mr. Tejpal S. Ingale, representing the appellants, highlighted that the MACT's reliance on the parents' age for the multiplier factor was a significant error. He emphasized that the correct multiplier, based on the deceased’s age, should have been 18. Furthermore, he stressed the tribunal's oversight in applying the principles from Pranay Sethi regarding filial consortium and future prospects.

Conversely, Mr. Sandip Jinsiwale, representing the insurance company (Respondent No. 4), conceded that the multiplier factor needed correction but defended the tribunal’s rejection of the deceased's employment evidence. He argued that the employment record provided by the deceased’s employer was insufficient due to lack of compliance with labor laws and absence of formal documentation.

Court’s Analysis and Conclusion:

The core dispute revolved around whether the deceased’s employment as a daily wage earner, earning Rs. 200 per day, could be accepted as evidence for determining compensation. The court noted that while the employer’s record was not fully compliant with labor laws, it did not disprove the employment or the daily wage amount. Given the circumstances, the court accepted the daily wage evidence and adjusted the monthly income estimate to Rs. 4,000, considering the irregular nature of daily wage employment.

Regarding the multiplier factor, the court concurred that the MACT erred by applying a multiplier of 13 instead of 18, as prescribed by the Supreme Court’s guidelines. The court also acknowledged the need to account for future prospects and other non-pecuniary components, including loss of estate, funeral expenses, and filial consortium, in line with the standards set by Pranay Sethi.

Final Award and Directions:

The court recalculated the compensation based on the correct multiplier and income estimate, leading to an enhanced total compensation of Rs. 7,32,000. After deducting the previously awarded amount of Rs. 2,54,000, the balance amount payable to the appellants was determined to be Rs. 4,78,000. This amount, along with interest at 8% per annum from the date of the claim petition, was to be paid by the insurance company within three weeks. The court made it clear that any disputes regarding inter-se rights among respondents under the insurance policy would be settled separately, without affecting the appellants' compensation.