Compensation must be based on minimum wages and include future prospects without arbitrary deductions of household expenses.

The Appellants (husband and two minor children of the deceased, Basanti) filed a claim for compensation following Basanti’s death in a motor accident

The 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, awarded a total sum of ₹3,71,000/- with interest via an award dated 31.01.2019

The Appellants challenged this award on the grounds that the Tribunal erroneously assessed the deceased's monthly income at ₹4,000/-, applied an incorrect 50% deduction for personal expenses after already deducting 1/3 for dependency, and awarded inadequate consortium

1. Whether the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased and applying personal expense deductions

2. Whether the Appellants are entitled to enhanced compensation under the heads of future prospects and consortium as per established legal precedents

The Court applied the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, specifically regarding the calculation of "just compensation"

It relied on the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification for income assessment

furthermore, it followed the computation standards established in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] regarding future prospects and conventional heads; Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. [(2009) 6 SCC 121] regarding multipliers and deductions; and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. [(2018) 18 SCC 130] regarding filial and spousal consortium

The Court found that the Tribunal’s assessment of income at ₹4,000/- was incorrect and revised it to ₹8,060/- per month based on prevailing minimum wages

The Court identified a procedural error where the Tribunal deducted 50% of the salary after an initial 1/3 deduction for dependency; this finding was set aside

Applying the Pranay Sethi guidelines, the Court added 40% for future prospects and applied a multiplier of 16

The Court also enhanced the consortium: ₹48,000/- for the husband and ₹48,000/- each for the two children (total ₹96,000/- for children), noting that the Tribunal’s prior award under these heads was insufficient

The Court directed the respondent insurance company to deposit the enhanced amount within three months, carrying interest at 9% per annum from the date of the claim application until realization