High Court of Chhattisgarh affirms Sarla Verma, Pranay Sethi and Magma guidelines; holds that, in absence of conclusive proof, minimum wages for the deceased’s trade (masonry) form the basis for compensation calculation, binding on subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | MAC/1223/2022 of SMT. SUNITA BAI Vs SHEIKH KALIM KHAN |
| CNR | CGHC010321842022 |
| Date of Registration | 07-11-2022 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | PARTLY ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY K. AGRAWAL |
| Court | High Court Of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedents (Pranay Sethi, Sarla Verma, Magma General Insurance cases) |
| Type of Law | Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Compensatory jurisprudence |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
In the absence of conclusive proof of actual earnings by the deceased mason, the Court must adopt the minimum wages prescribed for the relevant category as per the Sarla Verma framework and its progeny (Pranay Sethi and Magma), apply a 40% enhancement for future prospects, deduct one‐fourth for personal living expenses, choose an appropriate multiplier, and then add conventional heads such as loss of estate, funeral expenses, and consortium to arrive at the total compensation. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Deceased, a mason, died in a collision caused by rash driving of a Maruti Omni; Tribunal found no contributory negligence or policy breach; awarded Rs.19,16,190 under Section 173 MV Act. |
| Citations |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; Motor Accident Claims Tribunals across India |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confirms that, for a mason/deceased worker, the minimum wages at the relevant time (Rs. 9,250/month) must be adopted in absence of concrete proof of actual earnings.
- Reinforces 40% uplift for future prospects and one‐fourth deduction for personal expenses as per Sarla Verma.
- Validates choice of multiplier (15 for age 33) consistent with precedent.
- Endorses conventional heads (loss of estate, funeral, consortium) at enhanced rates (10% increase).
- Establishes that enhancement applications under Section 173 can be allowed where Tribunal under‐assesses notional income.
- Directs deposit of the enhanced amount within three months with 9% interest from filing of claim.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Tribunal assessed deceased’s monthly income at Rs. 8,710 on unsubstantiated basis.
- Court observed absence of admissible evidence of actual earnings; turned to minimum wages schedule for mason as relevant time: Rs. 9,250/month.
- Applied Sarla Verma formula:
- Annual income = Rs. 9,250 × 12 = Rs. 1,11,000
- Future prospects +40% = Rs. 44,400 → Total Rs. 1,55,400
- Deduction one‐fourth = Rs. 38,850 → Net annual loss Rs. 1,16,550
- Multiplier 15 → Rs. 17,48,250 compensation for dependency
- Added conventional heads with 10% enhancement: loss of estate (Rs. 16,500), funeral (Rs. 16,500), spousal consortium (Rs. 44,000), filial (Rs. 1,32,000), parental (Rs. 88,000)
- Total compensation fixed at Rs. 20,45,250 against tribunal’s Rs. 19,16,190; enhanced by Rs. 1,29,060.
- Directed insurance company to deposit enhanced amount within three months with interest @9% p.a. from claim filing.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Tribunal erred in fixing monthly income at Rs. 8,710 instead of adopting minimum wages for a mason (Rs. 9,250).
- Consequently, total compensation was under‐awarded.
Respondent
- Appellants failed to produce conclusive evidence of the deceased’s income; Tribunal rightly made notional assessment.
- Awarded compensation is just and calls for no interference.
Factual Background
On 22 November 2019, at around 9:30 PM, Nokhe Ram (alias Unesh) was riding a motorcycle with pillion riders towards Sim’s Hospital, Bilaspur, when a Maruti Omni (No. CG 10 F 5191), driven rashly, collided with and fatally injured him on the spot. A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed against the driver, owner, and insurer. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 19,16,190; the claimants appealed under Section 173 of the Act seeking enhancement based on income and dependency.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 173, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: appellate jurisdiction to enhance/reduce compensation awards.
- Reliance on guidelines under Section 166/168 for computation of compensation and the inherent principles laid out in judicial precedents (Sarla Verma framework).
- No amendment to statutory provisions; interpretive application of established criteria for notional income and multiplier.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed
Citations
- 2025:CGHC:44735
- (2017) 16 SCC 680 (Pranay Sethi)
- (2009) 6 SCC 121 (Sarla Verma)
- (2018) 18 SCC 130 (Magma General Insurance)