The Chhattisgarh High Court held that the income of a deceased unskilled labourer must be assessed in line with the prevailing Minimum Wages Notification, and recalculated compensation accordingly. The judgment upholds and applies existing Supreme Court precedent (Pranay Sethi, Sarla Verma, Magma General Insurance), clarifying its binding authority on Motor Accident Claims Tribunals and reinforcing the method for just compensation calculation in Chhattisgarh.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | MAC/536/2023 of SMT. JANKI BAI Vs DEEPAK KUMAR VERMA |
| CNR | CGHC010108382023 |
| Date of Registration | 05-04-2023 |
| Decision Date | 03-11-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Single Bench (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within Chhattisgarh; persuasive elsewhere |
| Type of Law | Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Motor Accident Compensation |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The income of a deceased unskilled labourer must be assessed as per the minimum wage specified by the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification at the time of the accident. The Supreme Court’s guidelines in Pranay Sethi, Sarla Verma, and Magma General Insurance must be followed for compensation calculation, including future prospects, deduction for personal expenses, appropriate multiplier, and conventional heads. The Tribunal had erred in using lower income and multiplier; the High Court rectified this to ensure just compensation in line with precedent. The enhancement is justified by statutory and judicial standards for “just compensation.” |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Minimum Wages Notification (Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh); Supreme Court precedents on compensation methodology |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Appellant, wife of deceased unskilled labourer Hemlal Gaikwad (aged 55 at death), sought enhanced compensation against a Claims Tribunal award of ₹6,87,760. The Tribunal calculated income at ₹7,800/month. The High Court considered the Minimum Wage Notification and recalculated compensation at ₹9,44,328, applying Supreme Court precedents. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All Motor Accident Claims Tribunals and subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and possibly Supreme Court in future similar cases |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that deceased’s income in compensation cases must match the Minimum Wages Notification in Chhattisgarh at the time of the accident.
- Clear application of Supreme Court precedents: Pranay Sethi for future prospects and conventional heads; Sarla Verma for multiplier; Magma for loss of consortium.
- Tribunal awards using lower wage or incorrect multiplier can be challenged and corrected using this authority.
- Interest on enhanced compensation accrues from date of application, not High Court order—statutory point confirmed.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court first considered the income as assessed by the Tribunal (₹7,800/month) and compared it with the Minimum Wages Notification of the relevant period, concluding it should be ₹8,960/month for an unskilled labourer.
- Applying the standard laid down by the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi, the Court added 10% towards future prospects, deducted one-third for personal expenses (as per Sarla Verma), and used multiplier “11,” correcting the Tribunal’s use of “9.”
- Conventional sums for loss of estate, funeral expenses, and consortium were updated in line with Magma General Insurance.
- The Court calculated the total and enhanced the compensation, referencing the principle of “just compensation” under the Motor Vehicles Act.
- Directions were issued for prompt deposit of the enhanced sum, with 9% interest from filing date, keeping other award conditions intact.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The Tribunal erred by taking deceased’s income as ₹7,800; it should have been ₹8,960 as per Minimum Wages Notification.
- Sought enhancement of compensation and award of just and proper amount.
Respondent (Insurance Company)
- Supported the award and opposed the contention for enhancement.
Factual Background
Appellant, Smt. Janki Bai, is the wife of deceased Hemlal Gaikwad, who died in a motor accident. He was an unskilled labourer, aged about 55 years. The Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of ₹6,87,760, calculating monthly income as ₹7,800. The appellant appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking enhancement based on the Minimum Wages Notification. The accident occurred prior to the date of the claim application (11-8-2021).
Statutory Analysis
- Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Appeal preferred against the award.
- The Court interpreted and applied the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification to assess the proper income base.
- Applied multipliers and deductions as mandated by Supreme Court interpretation of compensation principles under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment follows and applies Supreme Court precedent on just compensation calculation.