Chhattisgarh High CourtTransport, Maritime, and Aviation LawCivil Procedure and Evidence

Chhattisgarh HC Adds ₹95,256 To Family’s Accident Compensation, Assessing Deceased’s Income At ₹9,960/Month As An Unskilled Worker

SMT. ANISHA NISHADv.CHUMMAN VAISHNAV

Chhattisgarh HC Adds ₹95,256 To Family’s Accident Compensation, Assessing Deceased’s Income At ₹9,960/Month As An Unskilled Worker. SMT. ANISHA NISHAD vs CHUMMAN VAISHNAV. Chhattisgarh High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of the deceased’s monthly income at ₹9,540 should be revised in light of the applicable minimum-wage rate.

The court held

The appeal was partly allowed.

It also directed

The total compensation was enhanced from ₹23,91,672 to ₹24,86,928, entitling the appellants to an additional ₹95,256.

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 intact.

The Registry was directed to communicate the enhanced amount to the claimants in Hindi.

01Facts

The appellants, the deceased’s widow, minor son and parents, appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement of compensation for the death of Dular Nishad in a road accident on 4 May 2022.

¶ 1

The Claims Tribunal awarded ₹23,91,672, assessing the deceased’s monthly income at ₹9,540 as an unskilled labourer.

¶ 2

The appellants asserted that he earned ₹30,000 per month as a fish wholesaler, but the High Court noted that they had not produced reliable evidence to substantiate that income claim.

¶ 6

02Issues

i.Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of the deceased’s monthly income at ₹9,540 should be revised in light of the applicable minimum-wage rate.

¶ 6

ii.Whether the Tribunal’s assessment under future prospects, personal-expense deduction, multiplier and conventional heads warranted interference.

¶ 7

03Law Applied

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for an appeal against a Claims Tribunal’s award.

¶ 1

In determining compensation, the Court applied the principles in 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 1305, concerning future prospects, deductions for personal expenses, multiplier selection and consortium, respectively.

¶ 7–8

The Court assessed income by reference to the Chhattisgarh minimum-wage notification applicable to unskilled labour at the time of the accident.

¶ 6

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173

04Reasoning

The Court found no cogent evidence supporting the claim that the deceased earned ₹30,000 per month as a fish wholesaler and therefore assessed his income as an unskilled labourer.

¶ 6

It revised the monthly figure from ₹9,540 to ₹9,960 in accordance with the applicable minimum-wage notification.

¶ 6

Applying the existing 40% addition for future prospects, one-fourth deduction for personal expenses and multiplier of 18, the Court recalculated the loss of dependency.

¶ 7

It left undisturbed the Tribunal’s awards for consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses, finding the other components proper in the circumstances.

¶ 8

05Holding

The appeal was partly allowed.

¶ 9

The total compensation was enhanced from ₹23,91,672 to ₹24,86,928, entitling the appellants to an additional ₹95,256.

¶ 9

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 intact.

¶ 10

The Registry was directed to communicate the enhanced amount to the claimants in Hindi.

¶ 11
Chhattisgarh High Court

Original Court PDF

SMT. ANISHA NISHADvsCHUMMAN VAISHNAV

Chhattisgarh High Court · October 29, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment