Assessment of income in motor accident claims must align with statutory Minimum Wages Notifications.

The appellants, legal heirs of the deceased Genduram Jagat, filed a claim seeking compensation for his death in a motor vehicle accident

On September 29, 2018, the 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Bilaspur, awarded ₹7,00,000/- as compensation, fastening liability on the respondent Insurance Company

The appellants moved the High Court for enhancement, contending that the Tribunal erroneously assessed the deceased’s monthly income at ₹4,500/- instead of the ₹5,787/- prescribed by the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification

Conversely, the Insurance Company filed a cross-objection, arguing it should be exonerated from liability as the driver allegedly lacked a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident

1. Whether the Claims Tribunal was justified in fastening liability on the Insurance Company despite the challenge regarding the validity of the driver's license

2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires enhancement regarding the assessment of monthly income and the head of consortium

The Court primarily applied Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 regarding appeals

For the assessment of compensation and future prospects, it relied on the principles established in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. regarding multipliers and deductions for personal expenses

Furthermore, it applied the doctrine regarding "consortium" as expanded in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors.

Income assessment was governed by the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the Labour Commissioner

Regarding liability, the Court observed that the Insurance Company failed to produce "clinching evidence" to prove the driver’s license was invalid or ineffective; thus, the Tribunal’s finding of fact remains undisturbed

Regarding quantum, the Court determined that the Tribunal erred by ignoring the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification, which dictated a monthly income of ₹5,787/- rather than ₹4,500/-

The Court recalculated the compensation by adding 25% for future prospects, applying a multiplier of 14, and deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses

Additionally, the Court found the consortium award inadequate under the Magma General Insurance guidelines and enhanced it to ₹1,20,000/- (representing ₹40,000/- for each of the three claimants)

The Court held that the total compensation is enhanced from ₹7,00,000/- to ₹9,60,180/-

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the additional amount of ₹2,60,180/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of the claim application within three months

All other conditions of the original award remain intact