The High Court held that, in absence of concrete proof of income, the monthly income of the deceased can be assessed as per the prevailing Minimum Wages Notification for skilled labour, thus modifying and enhancing compensation accordingly. This ruling applies settled Supreme Court law and offers binding guidance for Motor Accident Claims Tribunals within Chhattisgarh.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | MAC/1240/2022 of SMT. BHAGWANTIN BAI Vs SHANKAR LAL SINHA |
| CNR | CGHC010351862022 |
| Date of Registration | 09-11-2022 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | PARTLY ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY K. AGRAWAL |
| Court | High Court Of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Single Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within Chhattisgarh |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing Supreme Court precedents |
| Type of Law | Motor Accident Compensation (Procedural/Substantive) |
| Questions of Law | How should income be assessed for fatal accident victims when exact earnings are unproved? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
In the absence of clinching evidence of the deceased’s income, courts must use the Minimum Wages Notification applicable for skilled workers to estimate monthly income for compensation purposes under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal’s lower figure was corrected, ensuring conformity with the latest Minimum Wage Notification. This enhances the compensation awarded to claimants and aligns the procedure with binding Supreme Court decisions. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Parents of a deceased 20-year-old (sole bread earner) challenged the Claims Tribunal’s compensation quantum. The Tribunal had awarded Rs. 12,56,360/- based on Rs. 7,800/- monthly income. The claimants sought enhancement citing the applicable Minimum Wage for skilled labour. The insurance company argued no reliable evidence of the deceased’s actual income existed. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and Motor Accident Claims Tribunals in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, may be cited for the principle of minimum wage assessment in absence of concrete proof of income |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reinforces that where no concrete documentary evidence is produced regarding the deceased’s income, compensation should be calculated using the Minimum Wages Notification applicable to the skills of the deceased.
- Ensures that at least the government-mandated minimum wage forms the baseline for income assessment in fatal accident cases.
- Directs all Claims Tribunals in Chhattisgarh to apply minimum wage standards, aligning with the latest Supreme Court methodology (Pranay Sethi, Sarla Verma).
- Lawyers must focus on arguing for the appropriate skill category as per the minimum wage notifications when representing claimants or insurers.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Tribunal initially assessed the income based on notional grounds without explicit reliance on the applicable minimum wage.
- The High Court found this assessment to be arbitrary given the existence of an official Minimum Wages Notification by the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, prescribing a higher monthly wage for skilled workers.
- Relying on Supreme Court judgments—National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, Sarla Verma v. DTC, and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram—the Court recalculated the compensation based on Rs. 8,860/- per month (skilled worker minimum wage), added 40% for future prospects, deducted 50% for personal expenses, used multiplier of 18, and correctly applied heads like loss of consortium, estate, and funeral.
- The enhanced amount was directed with 7% interest, maintaining other Tribunal conditions.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Tribunal granted an unduly low compensation as it incorrectly assessed the deceased’s income.
- Claimed the deceased was a skilled worker; compensation should be based on minimum wage for skilled category (Rs. 8,860/- per month).
Respondent
- Appellants failed to provide clinching, admissible evidence of deceased’s actual income.
- Supported the Tribunal’s approach of notional income assessment and opposed enhancement.
Factual Background
The deceased Prakash Kumar Kanwar, aged 20, was the son of the appellants and sole bread earner. He died in a traffic accident involving a truck covered by insurance. His parents filed a compensation claim for Rs. 30,50,000/- under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 12,56,360/-, calculating income at Rs. 7,800/- per month. Dissatisfied, the family appealed, seeking enhancement based on the applicable Minimum Wage Notification.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act: Governing compensation claims arising from motor vehicle accidents.
- Application made for enhancement per procedural provisions under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (appeal against award).
- Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification (statutory instrument) used to establish income in the absence of documentary proof.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinion indicated in the judgment; decision rendered by a Single Judge Bench.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or modifications noted in the judgment; standard appellate procedure followed.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing Supreme Court guidelines (Pranay Sethi, Sarla Verma) applied and reaffirmed.