The High Court of Chhattisgarh clarified that, when assessing compensation for deceased claimants, minimum wages as notified by the Labour Commissioner can be considered, particularly in the absence of documentary evidence of actual income, especially where the deceased had promising academic prospects. The court followed and applied Supreme Court precedents, enhancing compensation for estate, funeral expenses, and consortium, and set a binding precedent for all subordinate courts within the State.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | MAC/1236/2022 of RADHIKA SAHU Vs RAJKUMAR |
| CNR | CGHC010346832022 |
| Date of Registration | 09-11-2022 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OFF |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY K. AGRAWAL |
| Court | High Court Of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Single Bench (SB) – Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court precedents in Pranay Sethi, Sarla Verma, and Magma General Insurance |
| Type of Law | Motor Vehicle Accident Compensation (Tort/Statutory Compensation) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that, in the absence of direct evidence of income, it is appropriate to refer to the minimum wages notification applicable in the State for similarly placed persons (here, for mason) as a fair basis of computation, particularly when the deceased had promising academic credentials. Compensation under heads of loss of estate, funeral expenses, and consortium must also be enhanced as per recent Supreme Court directives. The court followed and applied the principles elucidated in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, Sarla Verma v. DTC, and Magma General Insurance v. Nanu Ram regarding computation of compensation and the fixation of notional income and multiplicand. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680; Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corp. (2009) 6 SCC 121; Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The court based its determination of notional income on state minimum wages notifications for similarly situated categories and applied the established formulae and guidelines for future prospects and conventional heads, as per Supreme Court precedent. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Deceased Ku. Leena Sahu, aged 22, was a civil service aspirant who died in a motor accident. The Claims Tribunal awarded compensation based on an income of ₹10,530/month and standard sums under other heads. The appeal sought enhancement, particularly arguing that income should be assessed as per minimum wages notification and other heads increased as per latest Supreme Court case law. |
| Citations | National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680; Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corp. (2009) 6 SCC 121; Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130 |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts in similar MACT appeals |
| Follows | National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680; Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corp. (2009) 6 SCC 121; Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court held that, in the absence of direct income proof, assessing the deceased’s income based on the minimum wages notification (relevant to mason category) is proper, especially where the deceased had advanced academic standing.
- Compensation under the heads of estate, funeral expenses, and consortium were explicitly enhanced to align with the amounts fixed in Supreme Court guidelines in Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance.
- The court provided a computation matrix demonstrating step-by-step application of notional income, future prospects, deduction, and multiplier, serving as a useful reference for similar cases.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court examined the mode of income determination used by the Claims Tribunal and found it inadequate, considering the deceased’s status as a civil service aspirant.
- The High Court relied on the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the Labour Commissioner (mason category) and fixed notional income at ₹13,000 per month.
- Following Supreme Court precedents – Pranay Sethi (for fixed heads and future prospects), Sarla Verma (for application of multiplier and deduction), and Magma General Insurance (for quantum under consortium and conventional heads) – the court recalculated compensation.
- The court outlined the method and amounts for each head: notional income (₹13,000/month), 40% addition for future prospects, deduction for personal expenses (50%), application of 18 multiplier, and enhancement of conventional amounts for loss of estate, funeral expenses, and consortium.
- The total compensation was thus enhanced, with the insurance company directed to deposit the differential amount with interest.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Claimed the Tribunal’s award was on a low side considering the educational background; urged that the income should be calculated as per Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification.
- Sought enhancement of compensation under heads of estate, funeral expenses, and consortium as per Supreme Court standards.
Respondent No. 1 (Driver)
- Opposed the prayer; contended that respondent No.1 is not liable to pay the compensation.
Respondent No. 3 (Insurance Company)
- Argued that claimants failed to produce credible evidence of occupation or income of deceased; defense of Tribunal’s adoption of notional income basis.
- Submitted that the compensation awarded was just and proper.
Factual Background
The deceased, Ku. Leena Sahu, was a 22-year-old civil service aspirant who died in a motor accident. Her family filed for compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg. The Tribunal assessed her notional income as ₹10,530 per month and awarded a total sum of ₹16,62,136 with interest. The claimants, dissatisfied with the amount and the income determination, appealed before the High Court for enhancement in compensation, specifically referencing prevailing minimum wages and Supreme Court guidelines for calculating various heads of loss.
Statutory Analysis
- The High Court’s analysis was under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (governing appeals against MACT awards).
- The court referred to the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification (Labour Commissioner’s office) for income assessment.
- Applied statutory guidelines established in Supreme Court judgments regarding calculation of future prospects, selection of multiplier, and quantum for conventional heads (Pranay Sethi, Sarla Verma, Magma General Insurance).
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The High Court has faithfully followed and applied established Supreme Court precedent on computation of compensation and heads thereof.
Citations
- National Insurance Co. 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