Just compensation in motor accident claims requires proved income and enhanced conventional damages, with reassessment of the award.

For motor accident compensation, the Court held that just compensation must be based on the more reliable proved income of the deceased rather than mechanically averaging fluctuating returns across assessment years. It further ruled that conventional heads, including consortium, loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, and loss of estate, required substantial enhancement to meet the statutory standard of fair and reasonable compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. While the age of the deceased and the multiplier were maintained, the multiplicand and conventional damages were reassessed, resulting in an enhanced award in favour of the claimants. One judge concurred in the enhancement but noted that future prospects for self-employed persons remained unsettled and warranted larger Bench consideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the compensation for death in a motor accident was required to be recomputed by taking the higher proved income of the deceased and by awarding appropriate amounts under conventional heads, so as to grant just compensation to the claimants.

Analysis: The deceased was an income-tax assessee carrying on business, and the High Court had averaged the income from two assessment years instead of taking the higher proved income for the relevant year. The Court held that, for the purpose of determining just compensation, the more reliable proved income should be adopted rather than mechanically averaging fluctuating returns. It further held that the compensation must be fair and reasonable under the Motor Vehicles Act and that the conventional heads such as consortium, loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, and loss of estate required substantial enhancement. In the facts of the case, the age of the deceased and the appropriate multiplier were maintained, but the multiplicand and conventional damages were reassessed to arrive at a higher just compensation.

Conclusion: The compensation was enhanced in favour of the claimants, and the award of the High Court was modified accordingly.

Concurring Opinion: One Judge agreed with the result and the enhancement of compensation, but separately discussed the unsettled position on addition towards future prospects for self-employed persons and the need for further authoritative consideration by a larger Bench.

---