Compensation must reflect notified minimum wages and applicable conventional heads under settled motor accident principles.

Lakhan Singh, aged approximately 38 years, died in a motor accident on 2 July 2022. His widow, minor son, and parents instituted a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balrampur, in Claim Case No. 62/2022.

By award dated 27 February 2024, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of ₹16,64,200 and fastened liability upon the appellant.

The appellant challenged the award under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

During the appeal, the appellant stated that 75% of the award had already been deposited and sought settlement and compliance of the award through I.A. No. 3/2026.

The claimants filed a cross-appeal seeking enhancement, contending that the deceased’s income and the amounts awarded under conventional heads had been assessed inadequately.

Whether the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal was required to be enhanced by reassessing the deceased’s income and the amounts payable under conventional heads?

Whether the appellant’s application for settlement and compliance could be entertained when the claimants’ cross-appeal for enhancement was pending and the compensation had been enhanced?

Whether the appellant’s challenge to the Tribunal’s award warranted interference by the High Court?

The Court exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

In determining just compensation, it relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, for the principles governing future prospects and conventional heads; Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, for the appropriate deduction towards the deceased’s personal and living expenses and the selection of multiplier; and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 1305, concerning compensation under conventional heads.

The Court also applied the applicable Chhattisgarh minimum-wages notification to determine the deceased’s monthly income.

The enhanced compensation was directed to carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization.

The Court held that the Tribunal had undervalued the deceased’s income. Applying the applicable minimum-wages notification, it substituted the monthly income of ₹7,800 with ₹9,960, resulting in an annual income of ₹1,19,520.

After adding 40% towards future prospects, deducting one-fourth towards personal expenses, and applying a multiplier of 15, the loss of dependency was calculated at ₹18,82,440.

The Court further enhanced the amount under conventional heads from ₹1,90,000 to ₹2,09,000 in accordance with the principles in Pranay Sethi, Sarla Verma, and Magma General Insurance.

The total compensation therefore became ₹20,91,440, representing an increase of ₹4,27,240 over the Tribunal’s award.

Since the claimants’ cross-appeal had resulted in enhancement, the appellant’s application seeking settlement and compliance of the original award could not be entertained and was dismissed.

The compensation was enhanced from ₹16,64,200 to ₹20,91,440, and the claimants were held entitled to an additional ₹4,27,240, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization.

I.A. No. 3/2026 seeking settlement and compliance of the Tribunal’s award was dismissed because the award had been enhanced in the pending cross-appeal.

The remaining terms of the Tribunal’s award were left undisturbed, and the Registry was directed to communicate the enhanced amount to the claimants in Hindi Devanagari, with assistance from paralegal workers where necessary.