The Chhattisgarh High Court reaffirmed that in the absence of evidence of the deceased’s occupation and earnings, minimum wages for an unskilled labourer, as notified at the time of the accident, should guide notional income calculation. The Court corrected the Tribunal’s lower assessment, enhanced compensation, and clarified that consortium is to be awarded to all eligible claimants. This serves as binding precedent for compensation determination under the Motor Vehicles Act within Chhattisgarh.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | MAC/470/2024 of LAXMI VEK Vs YUVRAJ SINGH BHASKAR |
| CNR | CGHC010075592024 |
| Date of Registration | 06-03-2024 |
| Decision Date | 16-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OFF |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh |
| Precedent Value |
|
| Overrules / Affirms | Partly modifies the award of the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur, District Bastar |
| Type of Law | Motor Accident Compensation / Tort Law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that, in the absence of proven occupation, the minimum wage prescribed for unskilled labourers at the time of the accident forms the baseline for notional income when determining compensation. The Tribunal erred by using a lower figure than the applicable minimum wage. The Court also found that loss of consortium should be awarded to each eligible claimant in accordance with prevailing norms. The award was accordingly modified and enhanced. The approach aims to ensure that dependents are not shortchanged due to evidentiary shortfalls regarding the deceased’s specific occupation. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | [Not expressly detailed in the judgment text.] |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The Court reasoned with reference to the Minimum Wages Act schedule and the legal obligation to use minimum wages as a fair benchmark where precise income is unproven, and applied current legal standards for consortium. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The deceased, Mahesh Vek, died in a road accident involving a motorcycle and a Scorpio vehicle. The claimants (mother and minor brother) pleaded that the deceased was a mechanic earning Rs. 15,000/month, but could not prove his profession or income. The Tribunal treated him as an unskilled labourer and assessed income at Rs. 9,000/month (below the prescribed Rs. 9,200/month for July 2021). Loss of consortium was not properly awarded to the minor brother. The High Court rectified these errors and recalculated the compensation. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and Motor Accident Claims Tribunals within the jurisdiction of the Chhattisgarh High Court. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and Tribunals dealing with similar compensation calculations in fatal motor accident claims. |
| Overrules | Modifies (partially overrules) the computation and findings of the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, in Claim Case No.320/2021 (award dated 20.12.2023). |
| Follows | Follows the statutory minimum wage schedule in absence of proven income and current legal guidelines on consortium. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that minimum wage notifications must be used for notional income determination where there is no proof of a deceased’s occupation or earnings.
- Confirms that consortium must be awarded to each eligible claimant, not just a lump sum to the family—here, doubling the previous amount.
- Lawyers should ensure minimum wage notifications at the accident date are annexed and argued in all such compensation claims.
- The approach provides a clear precedent to counter lower or arbitrary calculation of notional income by Tribunals.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court observed that though the claimants pleaded the deceased was a mechanic earning Rs. 15,000/month, they failed to adduce supporting evidence.
- The Tribunal’s basis of Rs. 9,000/month as income disregarded the actual minimum wage of Rs. 9,200/month for unskilled labour in July 2021; thus the High Court substituted the correct figure.
- The Court calculated future prospects at 40% and applied a multiplier of 18, deducting 50% for personal expenses, consistent with legal standards.
- The Tribunal failed to award consortium to all eligible claimants; following prevailing legal principles, the Court enhanced consortium compensation accordingly.
- The net result was an enhancement of compensation from Rs.14,41,400 to Rs.15,12,040, plus interest.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Submitted that the deceased was a mechanic earning Rs. 15,000/month, and sought Rs. 32,50,000 as compensation.
- Argued the Tribunal failed to use the correct minimum wage as notional income.
- Contended that consortium was not fully awarded to all dependents and sought enhancement.
Respondent
- Argued that the Tribunal’s award was just and appropriate.
- Opposed any enhancement of compensation.
Factual Background
The case arose from a fatal accident in which Mahesh Vek died on the spot when his motorcycle was hit by a Scorpio vehicle. The claimants—the deceased’s mother and minor brother—filed a compensation claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. They asserted the deceased was a mechanic earning Rs. 15,000/month. The Tribunal, citing lack of proof, assessed him as an unskilled labourer at Rs. 9,000/month and misapplied the consortium award. The High Court corrected both errors on appeal.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Basis for the compensation claim.
- The Court considered the Schedule of Minimum Wages as notified for July 2021, holding that the minimum wage for unskilled labour must be applied in the absence of documentary evidence of occupation.
- The calculation of consortium followed existing legal guidelines for fatal accident compensation.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
There was no dissenting or separate concurring opinion; the entire judgment was delivered by a single Bench.
Procedural Innovations
No procedural innovations were recorded in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment reaffirms the legal requirement to apply minimum wage notifications for notional income where income is unproven and clarifies standards for awarding consortium.