Must Future Prospects awarded by the Tribunal on a deceased's income be upheld by the High Court in appeal?
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal — Compensation — Future Prospects — Multiplier —
Compensation — Future Prospects — Deceased's income —
Held: The Tribunal's award of Future Prospects at 40 per cent on the deceased's average annual income must be upheld by the High Court, which enhanced compensation without awarding Future Prospects. (¶4)
Compensation — Enhancement — Interest — Disposal —
Held further: Compensation stands enhanced to Rs.1,06,71,710 with interest at 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of filing till realization; appeal disposed of. (¶4, 5)
Must Future Prospects awarded by the Tribunal on a deceased's income be upheld by the High Court in appeal?
Yes. Future Prospects awarded by the Tribunal on a deceased's income must be upheld by the High Court in appeal. Here, the Tribunal had awarded Future Prospects at 40 per cent on the deceased's average annual income, and while the High Court was right to enhance compensation using Income Tax Return documents, it did not award any amount on Future Prospects; the Future Prospects award is restored and total compensation enhanced to Rs.1,06,71,710 with interest at 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of the filing of the petition till realization. [¶4]
Prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment.
“An appeal was filed against the order of the MACT to the High Court for enhancement of compensation. The High Court increased the compensation payable to Rs. 86,07,840/- along with 7.5 % interest per annum by accepting that Income Tax Return documents could be validly relied upon to calculate the ‘Average Annual Income’ of the deceased, however, the High Court did not award any amount on Future Prospects as has been laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2017 (16) SCC 680).”
“We think that the High Court, though, has been correct to the extent of enhancing the compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case, however, the Future Prospects awarded by the MACT at 40% was rightly awarded and should have been upheld by the High Court. Consequently, we enhance the compensation awarded to the deceased to Rs.1,06,71,710/- along with 7.5% rate of interest per annum from the date of the filing of the petition till the date of realization. Accordingly, we direct enhancement of the compensation as per the following table: - Particulars Amount Income after tax of the deceased for Rs. 6,65,823/- the years 2013-2014 Future Prospects 40% Personal Expenses 1/4th Multiplier 15 Loss of Consortium Rs. 40,000/- Loss of Love and Affection Rs. 1,00,000/- Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Transportation Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs. 1,06,71,710/-”
Headnote & Points of Law
You've used your free headnotes this month
The Court's judgment is below in full, free, as always — that never changes. What needs an account is LexStreak's own work on it: the headnote, the questions this judgment settles, and the passages that decide them. A free account opens all of it again.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
This appeal is of the Claimants which arises out of the Impugned Judgement dated 30.01.2019 by the High Court of Madras in an appeal against the order of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai (for short, the “Tribunal”) dated 23.02.2018.
The accident occurred on 15.01.2013 when S. Karthikeyan (hereafter, deceased) was on his motorcycle on the Anna Salai Road from North to South Direction. The vehicle being driven by S. Karthikeyan, crashed with a crane, belonging to Respondent No. 1 which was duly insured with Respondent No. 2 which resulted in grievous injuries to the body of the deceased. He was taken to the hospital but he succumbed to his injuries. The claim petition was filed on behalf of the Appellants. The High Court as well as the Tribunal were of the opinion that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crane belonging to Respondent No.1. The liability to pay compensation was fixed on the Respondent No. 2 and accordingly the Claimants were awarded Rs. 21,34,000/- by the MACT with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.
An appeal was filed against the order of the MACT to the High Court for enhancement of compensation. The High Court increased the compensation payable to Rs. 86,07,840/- along with 7.5 % interest per annum by accepting that Income Tax Return documents could be validly relied upon to calculate the ‘Average Annual Income’ of the deceased, however, the High Court did not award any amount on Future Prospects as has been laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2017 (16) SCC 680).
We think that the High Court, though, has been correct to the extent of enhancing the compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case, however, the Future Prospects awarded by the MACT at 40% was rightly awarded and should have been upheld by the High Court. Consequently, we enhance the compensation awarded to the deceased to Rs.1,06,71,710/- along with 7.5% rate of interest per annum from the date of the filing of the petition till the date of realization. Accordingly, we direct enhancement of the compensation as per the following table: - Particulars Amount Income after tax of the deceased for Rs. 6,65,823/- the years 2013-2014 Future Prospects 40% Personal Expenses 1/4th Multiplier 15 Loss of Consortium Rs. 40,000/- Loss of Love and Affection Rs. 1,00,000/- Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Transportation Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs. 1,06,71,710/-
The appeal stands disposed of. Pending application if any, shall also stand disposed of in the above terms. .…….............................J. [HEMANT GUPTA] .…….............................J. [SUDHANSHU DHULIA] New Delhi, September 22, 2022
Is non-payment of a part of the sale price a ground for cancellation of a registered Sale Deed once title has passed?
2020 INSC 450 · Supreme Court of India
Does the burden to prove that property is joint property of a Hindu Undivided Family lie on the person who alleges it?
2020 INSC 327 · Supreme Court of India
Can a confession statement be used to frame charges against an accused in the absence of any other evidence?
CRL RC.2194/2023 · Madras High Court
The Supreme Court and the Madras High Court decide something every day. Read one a day.
A free account gets you the day's judgments in your practice areas, a reading streak, and folders to keep what matters.
Start reading freeOne judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
LexStreak turns the Supreme Court's and the Madras High Court's output into a five-minute daily read for advocates — plain-language headnotes, the questions each judgment settles, and the full text when you need it.
Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Headnote and questions prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk · Report an error · Privacy