One-Half Deduction for Personal Expenses is the Law, Not One-Third: Madras High Court Enhances Compensation for Deceased Pillion Rider’s Mother

“Tribunal committed a legal error in computing dependency – High Court applies correct Pranay Sethi formula to ensure just compensation”, In a significant ruling  Madras High Court, through Justice T.V. Thamilselvi, enhanced the compensation awarded to a widowed mother who lost her son in a tragic road accident, declaring that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had wrongly deducted one-third of the income towards personal expenses when the correct legal standard mandated one-half deduction.

The appeal arose from a fatal accident involving a two-wheeler, in which the deceased was a pillion rider. The Tribunal had originally awarded ₹23,38,000 as compensation, but the High Court revised this amount upwards to ₹24,89,200, correcting the methodology used in assessing loss of dependency and reaffirming the binding precedent laid down by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680.

“Personal Expenses Deduction in Case of Unmarried Deceased Must Be 50% — Tribunal’s Error Resulted in Under-Compensation”

The key legal correction came in the High Court’s finding that the Tribunal had “wrongly deducted 1/3rd of the income instead of 1/2 towards personal expenses,” which was in direct violation of the settled law applicable in cases involving deceased bachelors.

Justice Thamilselvi emphasised: “As per the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court, ½ of the income should be deducted towards personal expenses and the same is applied to the case to arrive at the compensation.”

Based on the deceased's bank records, the Court fixed his monthly income at ₹16,000 and added 40% (₹6,400) towards future prospects, taking the total notional income to ₹22,400. After applying the corrected one-half deduction (₹11,200), the Court computed the loss of dependency as: “Loss of dependency = ₹11,200 x 12 x 18 = ₹24,19,200.”

Thus, by a simple yet crucial rectification of the formula, the Court ensured that the mother of the deceased was not deprived of what was legally due to her.

“Correcting the Law and the Math — Justice Must Be Accurate and Compassionate”

The accident occurred on 08.09.2018, when the deceased, riding pillion on a motorcycle (Reg. No. TN-05-BS-6529), suffered fatal injuries after the vehicle collided with a structure on Kodaimara Salai. The widowed mother filed a compensation claim of ₹15,00,000, which was initially allowed by the Tribunal with an enhanced sum of ₹23,38,000 along with interest at 7.5% per annum.

However, the Tribunal’s calculation was flawed. By applying one-third deduction — a method only applicable where the deceased is survived by a spouse and children — the tribunal overestimated the dependency contribution and thereby undervalued the claim of a dependent mother, who under law is entitled to a higher deduction due to the bachelor status of the deceased.

Justice Thamilselvi corrected this, stating: “The method adopted by the Tribunal cannot be sustained, as it runs contrary to the binding precedent laid down in Pranay Sethi.”

“Total Compensation Enhanced to ₹24,89,200 — Interest at 7.5% Retained, Delay Period Excluded”

The High Court, while enhancing the compensation, retained the rate of interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit. However, the Court made it clear that: “The appellant shall not be entitled to claim interest for the period of delay, if any, in filing this appeal.”

The Court directed the United India Insurance Company Ltd., the second respondent, to deposit the enhanced compensation amount — ₹24,89,200 — after deducting any sums already paid, within eight weeks, and permitted the claimant to withdraw the amount upon following due legal procedure.

The sums awarded under other conventional heads — ₹40,000 for consortium, ₹15,000 for estate, and ₹15,000 for funeral expenses — were found reasonable and left untouched.

“Tribunal’s Award Had Typographical Errors — High Court Issues Correction Order Without Altering Substantive Justice”

Following the judgment on 01.08.2025, the matter was listed again on 11.11.2025 for being mentioned. The Court acknowledged that typographical errors had crept into paragraphs 2, 9, 10, and 11 of the original judgment. The corrections did not alter the substance of the judgment but merely clarified that the deceased's widowed mother was the claimant and confirmed that one-half deduction was the legally applicable standard.

The Court directed the Registry to: “Make out the necessary correction in the order copy and issue fresh order copy to the parties forthwith.”

This attention to both legal substance and clerical accuracy underscores the judiciary’s commitment to both fair adjudication and procedural precision.

“Compassion Must Be Rooted in Law, Not Sentiment” — High Court Ensures Just Application of Compensation Principles

This ruling not only upholds the claimant’s right to proper compensation but also serves as a critical reminder to Motor Accident Claims Tribunals across jurisdictions. Courts cannot afford to apply outdated or incorrect deduction standards when binding precedent is clear.

Justice Thamilselvi’s approach reflected this balance between empathy and legal precision: “Compensation must not be based on conjecture or benevolence but on tested legal principles and factual foundations.”

By correcting a computational and legal error that could have deprived a grieving mother of her rightful entitlement, the Court reaffirmed its constitutional role as a protector of rights and a corrector of legal wrongs.

Date of Decision: 1 August 2025 (corrected on 11 November 2025)