SYNOPSIS

The present Appeal has arisen from a judgment of the high court of judicature for Rajasthan at its
Jaipur bench confirming the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(M.A.C.T.)
FACTS
Facts leading to this Appeal are:-

 An accident took place on 15th November 2008 when at about 9 P.M wherein Sonu
Kumar Goyal was proceeding on a motor cycle from Thana and a truck bearing
registration No. R.J-32-GA-0398 dashed against the motor cycle as a result of which
Sonu Kumar sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot.
 The Appellants filed a claim for compensation before the M.A.C.T. by its order the
Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver of the
truck. The insurer was held jointly and severally liable together with the owner and the
driver. While assessing the claim of compensation. The tribunal did not accept the
certificates for the months of August, September and October produced by the first
Appellant i.e. the father of the deceased wherein the monthly income of the deceased was
mentioned as Rs. 15,000/- and indicated that the certificates were not duly proved. As the
deceased was pursuing the professional charted accountant course the tribunal adopted
the monthly income of Rs. 6000/- per month and since he was a bachelor, it deducted an
amount of Rs. 3000/- per month towards personal expenses. A multiplier of 11 was
applied on the basis of the age of the parents of the deceased. Accordingly, he loss of
dependency was computed to Rs. 3,96,000/- and after the addition of conventional heads
a total compensation of Rs. 4,31,000 was awarded.
 The appellants as well as the insurer filed the appeals before the High court. By its
judgment the high court declined to interfere with the award of the tribunal, thus being
aggrieved by the same, An Appeal was filed before the Supreme Court.

ISSUES RAISED
The issues that have been raised are as follows:-

 Has the tribunal and the high court done a right thing by not accepting the income
certificates?
 Why has no addition on the account of future prospects been made?
 Why is the multiplier adopted, based on the age of the parents of the deceased and not on
the age of the deceased?
 Is the interest provided, fair and just?
ORDER
Supreme Court held that the tribunal has given cogent reasons for not accepting the income
certificates and were of the view that the assessment of income by the tribunals cannot be
faulted. However it is observed that the Tribunal failed to apply the correct multiplier, and thus
the correct multiplier was considered to be 17 having regard to the age of the deceased, also an
addition of 40%towards future prospects was also warranted. On this basis the loss of
dependency worked out to be Rs. 8,56,800/-. The appellant were further entitled to an amount of
Rs. 15,000 towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,000 towards funeral expenses. The amount of
compensation accordingly stands quantified at Rs. 8,86,800/-. The appellants are allowed interest
@7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition before the M.A.C.T. till its realization, thus the
Appeal is allowed and there shall be no order as to costs.