The High Court of Chhattisgarh clarified that the income of a deceased mason in a motor accident claim must be determined based on the prevailing minimum wage notification, not on notional or lower earnings, thereby enhancing the compensation awarded. This judgment, applying and affirming binding Supreme Court precedent, is authoritative for compensation calculations in motor accident claims involving informal sector workers within the state.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | MAC/531/2022 of SMT. ANUCHHAYA Vs SHAMEEM ANSARI |
| CNR | CGHC010118872022 |
| Date of Registration | 12-04-2022 |
| Decision Date | 03-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | PARTLY ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY K. AGRAWAL |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur |
| Bench | Single Bench – Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within Chhattisgarh |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Motor Accident Claims, Compensation Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether the income of the deceased should be determined with reference to minimum wages notification for compensation calculation under the Motor Vehicles Act. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that, where reliable evidence of actual income is not produced, minimum wage notifications must be relied upon to determine the deceased’s income for compensation. The monthly income should reflect the wages per the Labour Commissioner’s notification for the category of work. The Court also clarified that consortium compensation must be calculated as per law for each claimant. Enhancement was allowed pursuant to these principles, following Supreme Court precedents. All heads of compensation (future prospects, deduction towards personal expenses, multiplier, loss of consortium, estate, and funeral expenses) are to be recomputed accordingly. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Affirmed reliance on statutory minimum wage notifications and Supreme Court methodology for accident compensation. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The widow and minor son of a deceased mason filed an appeal challenging the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal after the death of Ajay Kumar Khadiya in a motor accident. The dispute centered on the assessment of the deceased’s income and quantum of consortium. Appellants argued the Tribunal erred by not using the prescribed minimum wages for masons; respondent insurance company argued lack of proof for higher income. |
| Citations |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and Claims Tribunals within Chhattisgarh jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other states’ High Courts in cases involving assessment of income for unskilled/skilled deceased workers without documentary proof |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Income of deceased wage workers must be computed using applicable minimum wage notifications if no strict proof of actual earnings exists.
- Consortium compensation should reflect the correct legal entitlement per claimant, referring to Supreme Court judgments.
- The Court provided a clear computation methodology that must be followed by Tribunals, in line with Supreme Court directions.
- Appellate courts will intervene if Tribunals use notional income figures below statutory minimum wage.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted the Tribunal erred in fixing monthly income at ₹6,000 by not referring to the relevant minimum wage notification for masons.
- Applying the notification from the Labour Commissioner, the monthly income of the deceased should have been ₹8,960.
- Future prospects (40%) were added per the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi.
- After deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses (Sarla Verma), the multiplier of 16 (age based) was applied.
- The Court applied the Supreme Court directions for allotment under “loss of consortium” (Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram) and enhanced compensation accordingly.
- The Court directed the insurance company to pay the enhanced sum with 7.5% interest from date of claim filing.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Tribunal awarded less compensation than legally due.
- Minimum wage notification for masons prescribes higher income than what was adopted by the Tribunal.
- Amount under loss of consortium requires upward revision as per Supreme Court law.
Respondent (Insurance Company)
- There was no clinching evidence of the deceased’s actual income or specific occupation.
- Tribunal’s assessment of notional monthly income was justified and compensation was adequate.
Factual Background
The appellants, wife and minor son of Ajay Kumar Khadiya, claimed compensation for his accidental death. The Claims Tribunal awarded compensation on the basis of notional monthly income of ₹6,000 instead of the prescribed minimum wages for a mason. The main dispute on appeal was the quantum of income to be used for calculation and the proper application of compensation under various heads.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Provides the right of appeal against the award passed by Claims Tribunal.
- The Court analyzed the application of state minimum wage notifications for income determination in compensation claims where concrete evidence was lacking.
- Supreme Court precedents on calculation of compensation, especially in relation to addition of future prospects, deduction ratios, multiplier, and computation under heads of consortium and estate, were expressly followed.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions recorded; judgment is by a single judge.
Procedural Innovations
None noted; the judgment followed established appellate procedures for enhancement of compensation.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Supreme Court judgments (Pranay Sethi, Sarla Verma, Magma General Insurance) were reaffirmed and followed.
Citations
- 2025:CGHC:45060 (Neutral citation of Chhattisgarh High Court)
- National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680
- Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors (2009) 6 SCC 121
- Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors (2018) 18 SCC 130