Compensation must be assessed based on minimum wage notifications and include filial consortium for parents of the deceased.

The appellants, parents of the deceased Harish Kalar (17 years old), filed an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund.

By an award dated 24/12/2019 in Claim Case No. H-18/2016, the Tribunal had granted a total sum of Rs. 4,83,600/-.

The appellants challenged this award on the grounds that the Tribunal erroneously assessed the deceased’s monthly income at Rs. 3,000/- instead of the prevalent minimum wage of Rs. 5,787/- and failed to grant any compensation for loss of consortium.

1. Whether the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- as against the prevalent minimum wages notification?

2. Whether the appellants/claimants are entitled to compensation under the head of loss of consortium?

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, regarding appeals against compensation awards.

minimum wages notification prevalent at the time of the accident to determine the base income.

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] regarding future prospects.

Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. [(2009) 6 SCC 121] regarding the multiplier and deduction for personal expenses.

Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. [(2018) 18 SCC 130] regarding the entitlement of each claimant to loss of consortium.

The High Court found that the Tribunal's assessment of the deceased's monthly income at Rs. 3,000/- was incorrect, as it should have adhered to the minimum wage notification of Rs. 5,787/-.

Applying the Pranay Sethi mandate, the Court added 40% for future prospects and, following the Sarla Verma guidelines for a 17-year-old deceased, applied a multiplier of 18 and a 1/2 deduction for personal expenses.

The Court further noted the Tribunal’s omission regarding the head of "loss of consortium" and, per the Magma General precedent, awarded Rs. 44,000/- to each of the two appellants.

Consequently, the total compensation was re-calculated from Rs. 4,83,600/- to Rs. 9,92,998/-.

Respondent No. 3 (the Insurer) was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within three months with interest at 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim (19/01/2016) until realization.

All other conditions of the original award remained intact.