The Chhattisgarh High Court reaffirmed that the computation of monthly income for a deceased skilled labourer in motor accident compensation appeals must be based on prevailing minimum wage notifications, even if a lower figure was adopted by the Tribunal. This judgment applies established Supreme Court precedents (Pranay Sethi, Sarla Verma, Magma General) and clarifies compensation heads. The case strengthens binding precedent for Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACT) in quantifying income and loss of consortium.
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | MAC/702/2022 of SMT. PRABHA BAI SEN Vs NEMCHAND |
| CNR | CGHC010162332022 |
| Date of Registration | 21-06-2022 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY K. AGRAWAL |
| Court | High Court Of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Single Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority on Motor Accident tribunals and subordinate courts within the state |
| Type of Law | Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Compensation for Fatal Accidents |
| Questions of Law | Whether the minimum wage notification prevails for computing income of deceased skilled labourers in MACT compensation; quantum on consortium and related heads. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that determination of monthly income for deceased skilled labourers in motor accident cases must be based on statutory minimum wage notifications prevailing at the time of the accident. Application of a lower, arbitrary figure by a Tribunal is erroneous if statutory minimum wages are prescribed. The Court further confirmed that the amount under the head ‘loss of consortium’ should align with recent Supreme Court directives, necessitating an enhancement from Rs. 1,32,000/- to Rs. 2,20,000/-. In computing compensation, relevant Supreme Court judgments (Pranay Sethi, Sarla Verma, Magma General Insurance) govern quantum, multipliers, and heads of loss. The award was enhanced accordingly. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The Court relied on Supreme Court rulings mandating adherence to minimum wage notifications, future prospects, established multipliers based on age, and proper application of consortium and estate loss heads. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The deceased (aged 28), a skilled labourer (Rajmistri), died in a motor vehicle accident. The Tribunal set monthly income at Rs. 8,000, which was challenged by the claimants, arguing for Rs. 9,750 per minimum wage notifications. They also sought higher compensation for ‘loss of consortium’. The insurance company defended the original calculation. The Court revised the income and consortium head as per Supreme Court directives. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and MACTs within Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Tribunals, and Legal Practitioners nationally in similar fact situations |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Court mandates that minimum wages notifications must be strictly followed for income assessment of the deceased in motor accident compensation claims.
- Amounts awarded under ‘loss of consortium’ and related heads must conform to recent Supreme Court benchmarks; old, lower figures will be enhanced if challenged.
- This judgment can be directly cited to correct/depart from lower, arbitrary income assessments by tribunals that ignore minimum wage laws.
- Clarifies computative methodology—income × future prospects × deduction × multiplier—relying on authoritative precedent.
- Explicitly states interest computation from the date of claim application for enhanced compensation.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined the computation of income for fatal accident claims and noted that the Tribunal had assessed a lower monthly wage for the deceased (Rs. 8,000).
- Referring to minimum wage notifications applicable at the date of death, the Court concluded that Rs. 9,750 per month should determine the base income as the deceased was a skilled worker.
- Enhancement of ‘loss of consortium’ was justified by citing Supreme Court’s authority in Magma General Insurance, which raised the notional amount to Rs. 2,20,000, and was also supported by Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma for other heads.
- The Court recalculated compensation by applying the correct income, percentage for future prospects, proper deduction, established multiplier (based on age), and by updating the statutory amounts under different heads.
- The Court held that ignoring binding minimum wage notifications or established Supreme Court directions in awarding compensation by tribunals constitutes legal error.
- Enhanced compensation awarded with interest as per statute, affirming that statutory and precedential compliance is mandatory in these matters.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellants/Claimants):
- Tribunal erred by assessing the deceased’s income at Rs. 8,000 per month; minimum wage notification prescribes Rs. 9,750.
- Compensation under ‘loss of consortium’ was undervalued; Rs. 2,20,000 should have been awarded as per law.
Respondent No. 3 (Insurance Company):
- Supported the award as just and proper; contended no interference was warranted with the Tribunal’s calculation.
Factual Background
The deceased, Satish Sen (aged 28), worked as a skilled labourer (Rajmistri) and died in a motor vehicle accident. His family filed for compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which awarded Rs. 18,78,600 based on a monthly income of Rs. 8,000. The claimants appealed to the High Court for enhancement, citing a higher minimum wage and under-calculation of consortium. The accident and claim were undisputed by the insurance company.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Provides for appeals against MACT awards.
- The Court interpreted relevant minimum wage notifications as binding for computation of income in accident cases.
- Supreme Court precedent (Pranay Sethi) as binding on heads of compensation, multipliers, and calculation methodologies.
Procedural Innovations
- None explicitly stated; judgment follows standard appellate procedure for enhancement.
- Court clarified direct application of Supreme Court formulas and statutory income criteria over discretion-based ad hoc assessment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing Supreme Court law on income assessment, heads of compensation, and method of calculation is followed and reaffirmed.