Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Advocate v. ROOP CHAND ORS. Through

Judgment

1. The present Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as “MV Act"] seeking to challenge the award dated 17.08.2013 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Award”]. By the Impugned Award, compensation in the sum of Rs.13,46,000/- has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.

2. None has appeared on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 3/Claimants for the last several dates. Court Notice was also issued by the Coordinate Bench on 12.03.2025 despite which there has been no appearance on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 3/Claimants.

3. This Court had by an order dated 25.10.2013 directed that the Impugned Award be stayed on deposit of 80% of the awarded amount along Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:29.09.2025 21:27:19 MAC.APP. 956/2013 with up to date interest and had further directed release of the entire awarded amount to the Respondent Nos.1 to 3/Claimants.

4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that a challenge by the driver and owner to the grant of recovery rights, has been filed separately. However, the only challenge in the present Appeal is by the Insurance Company on the quantum of the amounts awarded.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant only raises two grounds. Firstly, the challenge is on the grant of future prospects on the earnings of the deceased that had been granted at the rate of 50%. It is contended, relying on Paragraph

59.4 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Ors.1 that the deduction granted should have been at the rate of 40%.

5.1 Secondly, the challenge is on the grant of multiplier of 18, which as per learned Counsel for the Appellant, has been wrongfully computed in this case. She submits that the deceased was a bachelor at the time of the accident and that the multiplier should have been applied on the basis of the age of the parents. She further submits that if the age of the mother is taken into consideration, the applicable multiplier would be 14.

6. As stated above, although the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have stopped appearing before this Court, they had filed a Reply to this Appeal setting out that the Impugned Award does not suffer from any infirmity.

7. Briefly the facts are that the deceased was a bachelor living with his parents and his younger brother. The deceased met with an accident on 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:29.09.2025 21:27:19 MAC.APP. 956/2013

31.03.2012 at around 3:30 p.m. with a TATA 407 Tempo, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner. The tempo overtook a car and hit the motorcycle being driven by the deceased, as a result of which he fell on the road. The driver of the offending vehicle then ran over the deceased and then tried to run away. The way of the offending vehicle was blocked, but the driver managed to run away. The deceased was taken to the Ayushman hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries.

7.1 A Claim Petition was filed by the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 under Section 166 of the MV Act, 1988 seeking compensation wherein it was stated that the deceased was the only bread winner in his family and supporting his family comprising of his father, mother and younger brother. It is further set out that the deceased was earning Rs. 17,000/- per month and had the capacity to even earn Rs. 80,000/- per month in the future.

8. By the Impugned Award, the learned Trial Court gave two findings. Firstly, so far as concerns the deduction at the rate of 50%, the learned Trial Court while relying on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Rajesh and Others v. Rajbir Singh & Others2 held that since the deceased was below the age of 40 years, the addition should be 50% on the annual income and was required to be made while computing future prospects.

9. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has contended that since the salary was a fixed salary in terms of the judgment in the Pranay Sethi case, the future prospects at the rate of 40% should have been awarded. Reliance placed on paragraph 59.4 of the Pranay Sethi case in this behalf is set out below: 2 (2013) 9 SCC 54 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:29.09.2025 21:27:19 MAC.APP. 956/2013 “59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.” [Emphasis supplied]

10. The Supreme Court in the Pranay Sethi case has while discussing various aspects of law, clarified the aspects of addition to the actual income of a deceased towards his future prospects, in respect of different categories of persons whether, of different ages with a permanent job, with a fixed salary or a self-employed.

11. No doubt, the judgment in the Pranay Sethi case does set this out. However, undisputably, the Impugned Award was passed on 17.08.2013 which is prior to the decision in Pranay Sethi case being passed, and the Impugned Award was passed based on law which existed as on that date.

12. The Supreme Court in Rajesh case has, while relying on the judgment in Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.3 and Sarla Verma & Ors. v. DTC & Anr.4, clarified that future prospects must also be applied to self-employed and fixed wage earners, with 50% addition if below the age of 40 years, 30% if between 40–50 years, and 15% if between 50–60 years, with no addition thereafter. It is apposite to set out the relevant extract of Rajesh case below: “8. Since, the Court in Santosh Devi case [Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 6 SCC 421 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 726 : (2012) 3