The Chhattisgarh High Court clarified that in the absence of documentary evidence for income, notional income based on minimum wages for semi-skilled labour (at the relevant time) should be adopted; additionally, future prospects and updated amounts under non-pecuniary heads must be granted per Supreme Court precedents. This judgment follows and applies binding authority, reaffirming and adjusting compensation principles under established law.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | MAC/965/2018 of HEERA BAI SAHU Vs FATTE KUMAR PALKE |
| CNR | CGHC010178332018 |
| Date of Registration | 23-06-2018 |
| Decision Date | 03-11-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | PARTLY ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMITENDRA KISHORE PRASAD |
| Court | High Court Of Chhattisgarh |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Chhattisgarh; applies Supreme Court law as binding precedent |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms and applies Supreme Court precedents |
| Type of Law | Motor Accident Compensation (Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
In absence of documentary or credible oral evidence regarding income of the deceased, the court must adopt notional income as per minimum wages applicable at the relevant time, choosing the correct skill category. Following Supreme Court judgments in Pranay Sethi, Sarla Verma, and Magma General Insurance, compensation must include future prospects and increased amounts under non-pecuniary heads, to be updated periodically as per judicial directions. The compensation must be just—neither meager nor excessive—based strictly on the facts and available evidence. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The Court placed emphasis on the necessity of adopting a just and reasonable standard for notional income and ensuring that all heads of compensation are computed according to Supreme Court mandates, specifically including periodic increases and future prospects. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The deceased, aged 45, died in a road accident involving a tractor, with the claimants seeking Rs. 30,75,000/- compensation. The Tribunal had fixed notional income at Rs. 6,210/- p.m., awarding Rs. 9,34,400/-. On appeal, the High Court found no evidence for higher income but revised the notional income to Rs. 6,388/- p.m. as per minimum wage, applied future prospects and enhanced non-pecuniary heads, and allowed partly enhanced compensation. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; can be cited for the approach to income determination and quantum calculation |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that notional income must be fixed according to notified minimum wages for the skill category at the relevant time when actual proof is absent.
- Reiterates that future prospects must be added to notional income, following Supreme Court guidelines.
- Directs that non-pecuniary heads (consortium, funeral expenses, loss of estate) must be updated with periodic increases as per Supreme Court judgments.
- Applies the Pranay Sethi, Sarla Verma, and Magma General Insurance principles comprehensively to assessment of compensation by Claims Tribunals.
- Provides a clear stepwise approach for calculation, useful for arguing or contesting quantum in similar appeals.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court reviewed the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal in light of the appellant’s plea for enhancement.
- Noted that, although the claimants alleged the deceased earned Rs. 20,000/- as a contractor, there was no documentary or oral evidence to support this.
- Applying Supreme Court precedent (Pranay Sethi, Sarla Verma), the Court fixed notional income as per the minimum wage for semi-skilled workers at the relevant period (Rs. 6,388/- p.m.).
- Added 25% towards future prospects, as mandated by Pranay Sethi for the relevant age group.
- Allowed deductions of 1/3rd for personal expenses, as per Sarla Verma.
- Applied the appropriate multiplier of 14, as per Sarla Verma, based on age of the deceased.
- For non-pecuniary damages (spousal/parental consortium, loss of estate, funeral expenses), the Court updated the awards according to Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance, including the required 10% increment per three years.
- Summed the revised heads, calculated the enhanced compensation, and directed interest on the enhanced amount.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellants/Claimants):
- The compensation awarded by the Tribunal was meager.
- The Tribunal erred in fixing income at notional rate despite evidence and pleadings suggesting a monthly income of Rs. 20,000/- as a contractor.
- Compensation under other heads was also insufficient.
- Sought enhancement of awarded compensation.
Respondent No. 3 (Insurance Company):
- The Tribunal properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence.
- The awarded compensation aligned with Supreme Court guidelines.
- No interference was warranted; the appeal should be dismissed.
Factual Background
The deceased, Ramsahay Sahu, aged about 45 years, died in a road accident on 09.02.2017 involving a tractor that was driven rashly and negligently from the wrong side, causing a fatal collision. The claimants—his widow and two sons—alleged dependency and sought compensation of Rs. 30,75,000/- from the driver, owner, and insurer. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 9,34,400/-, which prompted the claimants to file an appeal for enhancement of compensation.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Provides for appeals against awards of Claims Tribunals.
- The Court analyzed the methodology for determining “just” compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, referring to section-wise computation (dependency, non-pecuniary heads), drawing on Supreme Court precedent for calculation specifics.
- Minimum Wages Act principles: Used as the benchmark for notional income in absence of documentary proof.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed