The Chhattisgarh High Court reaffirmed that for deceased claimants who were pensioners above 60 years, assessment of income for motor accident compensation should be based on actual pension received rather than the minimum wage matrix, and future prospects need not be added. This judgment upholds settled law and serves as binding authority for motor accident compensation cases in the state.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | MAC/583/2019 of DEVNARAYAN SINGH Vs SHANKAR SINGH |
| CNR | CGHC010082512019 |
| Date of Registration | 20-03-2019 |
| Decision Date | 27-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY |
| Court | High Court Of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Single Judge Bench (Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh for similar compensation assessment situations |
| Type of Law | Motor Accident Claims / Compensation |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that the Claims Tribunal was correct in assessing the deceased pensioner’s income based on actual pension, and not the minimum wage matrix, because the deceased was not an unskilled labourer but a retired employee receiving a pension. The Tribunal’s deduction of 50% for personal expenses, awarding of consortium and funeral expenses, and application of a multiplier of 9 (based on age over 65) were found just and proper. In accordance with legal principles, no future prospects are to be added for deceased persons over the age of 60 years. There was found to be no error or ground for interference. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Deceased (over 65) was a retired SECL employee receiving Rs. 2,350/– pension. On 19.04.2016, he died in a motor accident involving a negligently driven tractor-trolley. The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 3,17,116/– as compensation, using a notional monthly income of Rs. 4,854/– based on actual pension, no future prospects, and a multiplier of 9. Appellant son sought enhancement, arguing for minimum wage computation and the addition of future prospects. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate (Motor Accident Claims) courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering pensioners in compensation claims |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that for compensation calculation, actual pension income—not minimum wage matrix—must be used if the deceased was a pensioner and not an active worker.
- Reaffirms that future prospects are not to be added for deceased claimants above 60 years of age.
- Upholds established Tribunal practices regarding deductions for personal expenses, multiplier selection, and standard heads such as consortium and funeral expenses for aged dependents.
- Lawyers should ensure evidence of the deceased’s income class (pensioner/retired vs. working/unskilled) is clear in compensation claims.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted that the deceased was a retired employee and pension beneficiary, not an active worker or an unskilled labourer; thus, the Claims Tribunal was right in using the actual pension received as the income for compensation computation, rather than the minimum wage amount.
- The Tribunal’s income assessment (Rs. 4,854/- per month) reflected a reasonable approach—imputing minimum wage would not be justified for pensioners not working as labourers.
- The deduction of 50% towards personal expenses was affirmed, being appropriate given the number of dependents.
- Applying a multiplier of 9, based on the deceased’s age (over 65 years), aligns with accepted legal standards for accident compensation cases.
- No compensation for future prospects was required, in consonance with principles holding that future prospects are inapplicable for deceased persons over age 60.
- The Court found no error in calculation of compensation under the above principles, affirming the Tribunal’s award as just and proper.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant/Claimant):
- Argued that the Tribunal assessed the deceased’s income on the lower side, and should have applied the minimum wage matrix for Chhattisgarh.
- Contended that compensation for future prospects was not awarded and should have been included.
Respondents:
- Insurance Company: Asserted that the claimant failed to prove dependency, since he was 40 years old and had his own source of income. Supported the Tribunal’s refusal to award future prospects as the deceased was above 60. Asserted that the compensation awarded was just and proper.
- Other respondents (driver/owner): Endorsed the Insurance Company’s submissions.
Factual Background
The case arose from a road traffic accident on 19.04.2016, when the deceased (Mohan Lal), a retired SECL employee aged over 65 and receiving a pension, died after a tractor-trolley dashed into the jeep he was traveling in. His son, the appellant, sought compensation of Rs. 23,55,000/–, claiming minimum wage computation and future prospects. The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 3,17,116/–, basing the income assessment on actual pension, deducting 50% for personal expenses, allowing Rs. 40,000/– for consortium, Rs. 15,000/– for funeral expenses, and applying a multiplier of 9, without granting compensation for future prospects.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Appeal was brought under this provision.
- Minimum wage notifications (as applicable in Chhattisgarh for 2016) were cited by appellant; the Court held they are not applicable to pensioners not working as labourers.
- Standard multiplier method for compensation based on the age of the deceased applied as per established precedent.
- No reading down, expansion, or constitutional analysis was discussed in the judgment.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No procedural innovations or new guidelines issued in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision affirms and applies settled legal principles on compensation assessment for pensioners and aged accident victims, without introducing new or opposing precedent.