The Chhattisgarh High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedent (Pranay Sethi, Magma General, Satinder Kaur), reaffirmed that for deceased persons under 40 years with no proven income, 40% must be added towards future prospects over the notional income, and multiple consortiums (spousal, parental, filial) are awardable to eligible claimants. This approach is compulsory unless superseded by higher court or subsequent legislation; the ruling modifies prior practices where lesser heads or quantum were used, and serves as binding authority for Motor Accident Claims Tribunals in Chhattisgarh.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | MAC/1863/2018 of SMT. SAVITA PRAJAPATI Vs AMJAT KHAN, CNR CGHC010374692018 |
| Date of Registration | 26-11-2018 |
| Decision Date | 03-11-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | PARTLY ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMITENDRA KISHORE PRASAD |
| Court | High Court Of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur |
| Precedent Value | Binding for Motor Accident Claims Tribunals in Chhattisgarh; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court judgments: Sarla Verma, Pranay Sethi, Magma General, United India Insurance v. Satinder Kaur |
| Type of Law | Motor Accident Compensation (Personal Injury Law; MACT) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that in accordance with Supreme Court precedent, in fatal motor accident compensation claims, notional income must be assessed based on minimum wages if not proved, and a 40% increment for future prospects should be mandatorily added for deceased under 40 years of age. For consortium, as clarified by the Supreme Court, all eligible claimants (spouse, children, parents) are entitled to compensation under different consortium heads (spousal, parental, filial). There is also provision for a 10% enhancement in every three years in certain heads. These formulas are binding unless changed by statute or superior authority. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon | Supreme Court’s binding clarification of multiplier method, notional income, future prospects, and heads of compensation including various types of consortium, with periodic enhancement as per Satinder Kaur. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | On 12.03.2017, Shivnath died after a Duster car (driven by respondent) collided with his bike. Claimants (wife, children, mother) filed for compensation. Respondents disputed liability and insurance applicability, raising issues such as late FIR and validity of driver’s licence. The Tribunal awarded partial compensation; claimants sought enhancement. Court revised notional income to minimum wages, awarded 40% future prospects, and assigned consortium as per latest Supreme Court guidelines. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All Motor Accident Claims Tribunals in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court, and Motor Accident Claims Tribunals outside Chhattisgarh |
| Follows | Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009); National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017); Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram (2018); United India Insurance v. Satinder Kaur (2020) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that when no direct evidence of a deceased’s income exists, courts should assess income based on prevailing minimum wages and add 40% for future prospects for deceased under 40.
- Clarifies that ‘consortium’ compensation is multi-faceted: separate amounts to spouse, children, and parents, instead of a single consolidated amount.
- Confirms incremental enhancement (10% every three years) for loss of estate, funeral expenses and consortium, as per evolving Supreme Court precedent.
- Lays down a specific tabular calculation approach for loss of dependency.
- Specifies that insurance liability persists unless policy violations (like lack of valid licence) are proved conclusively by insurer.
- Lawyers handling MACT matters in Chhattisgarh must cite and follow this approach in claim drafting and oral submissions.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted that claimants failed to prove the deceased’s actual income, thereby requiring notional assessment as per prevailing minimum wages.
- Relied on Sarla Verma’s and Pranay Sethi’s established methods for quantifying income, future prospects, and deductions for personal expenses.
- Magma General Insurance was cited for dividing ‘consortium’ into spousal, parental and filial types, thus awarding compensation under each head, not just one.
- United India Insurance v. Satinder Kaur reinforced 10% enhancement every three years for consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses.
- The court carefully recalculated each head as per Supreme Court guidelines and ensured the insurer’s liability unless clear statutory defences were established.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners (Claimants):
- Compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and requires enhancement.
- Tribunal erred by not granting future prospects.
- Consortium claims were under-awarded.
- Tribunal failed to comprehensively compensate under all heads.
Respondent No.3 (Insurance Company):
- On accident date, driver allegedly had no valid licence, violating policy terms; so insurer should not be liable.
- Tribunal’s compensation was just and does not warrant interference.
Factual Background
On 12 March 2017, Shivnath died in an accident when a Duster car, driven allegedly in a rash and negligent manner, collided with his motorcycle. The claimants (his wife, children, and mother) sought compensation. The insurer contested the nature of the accident, the delayed FIR, and raised doubts about driver’s valid licence. The Tribunal awarded partial compensation; petitioners sought enhancement in High Court.
Statutory Analysis
- The court applied provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 concerning compensation for death in motor accidents.
- Applied Section 166 (claims by victims/legal representatives).
- Interpreted quantum of compensation per Schedule and as clarified by Supreme Court precedent (no ‘reading down’ or constitutional aspects were discussed).
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed