BSc-Educated 22-Year-Old’s Family Gets Rs 7.56 Lakh More In Accident Compensation As Chhattisgarh HC Assesses His Income At Rs 14,000 A Month

The claimants, the deceased’s parents and brother, sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for the death of 22-year-old Vikas Kumar Bada in a motor accident on 22 November 2022.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 15,40,800.

The claimants appealed under Section 173 of the Act, seeking enhancement, principally on the ground that the Tribunal had underestimated the deceased’s income.

They relied on his B.Sc. qualification and evidence that he earned income as a coaching instructor.

The appeal was filed 26 days late; the High Court condoned the delay.

Under Sections 166 and 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a claimant may seek compensation for death caused by a motor accident and appeal the Tribunal’s award.

Where documentary proof of a young deceased person’s income is unavailable, a Tribunal may assess income through reasonable estimation and the preponderance of probabilities; the judgment relied on Sebati Nath & Ors. v. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. (2025) SCC OnLine SC 3468.

It also relied on Navjot Singh v. Harpreet Singh, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1562, for the principle that a student’s notional income should not necessarily be restricted to minimum wages and may reflect future earning potential.

It also relied on Meena Pawaia v. Ashraf Ali, (2021) 17 SCC 148, for assessing a young student’s future economic loss at Rs. 14,000 per month.

The assessment of future prospects, personal-expense deductions, multiplier, and conventional heads was guided by National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680; Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121; and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130.

The deceased’s B.Sc. third-year marksheet supported his higher educational qualification, while his mother testified that he worked as a coaching instructor.

Although the evidence did not establish the claimed income of Rs. 30,000 per month, the Tribunal’s assessment of Rs. 9,000 as the income of an unskilled labourer did not adequately account for his education and earning potential.

Applying the principles in Navjot Singh, Sebati Nath, and Meena Pawaia, the Court assessed monthly income at Rs. 14,000.

It left unchanged the Tribunal’s addition of 40% for future prospects, one-half deduction for personal expenses, multiplier of 18, and awards under conventional heads.

The additional amount carries interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim application until realization; the remaining terms of the Tribunal’s award were left undisturbed.