Compensation must reflect the deceased’s notified minimum wages when computing motor accident claims.

Kamlesh Yadav, aged approximately 27 years, died in a motor-vehicle accident on 5 May 2020 involving motorcycle No. CG-22/M-5843, driven and owned by respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 2, Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.

His widow, two minor children, and parents filed a claim petition. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, in Claim Case No. 1257/2021, awarded total compensation of ₹21,03,620 by its award dated 7 October 2022. The claimants filed an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement on the ground that the deceased’s income and compensation under conventional heads had been assessed inadequately.

The insurer opposed the appeal and supported the Tribunal’s award.

Whether the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the deceased’s monthly income at ₹8,600 instead of ₹8,860 in accordance with the applicable Chhattisgarh minimum-wages notification?

Whether the compensation payable to the claimants required enhancement by applying the principles relating to deduction for personal expenses, future prospects, multiplier, and conventional heads?

Whether the claimants were entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation from the date of filing of the claim application?

The Court exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which permits an appeal against an award of a Claims Tribunal.

For computation of loss of dependency, it applied Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors., (2009) 6 SCC 121, including the appropriate deduction for personal expenses and multiplier method.

It applied National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, concerning the addition of future prospects and amounts payable under conventional heads.

It also relied on Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors., (2018) 18 SCC 1304, concerning compensation under conventional heads, including consortium.

The deceased’s income was required to be assessed with reference to the applicable Chhattisgarh minimum-wages notification issued by the Labour Commissioner.

The Court found that the Tribunal had assessed the deceased’s monthly income at ₹8,600, whereas the applicable minimum-wages notification prescribed ₹8,860; the annual income was therefore recalculated at ₹1,06,320 instead of ₹1,03,200.

Applying the principles in Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi, the Court deducted one-fourth towards personal expenses, added 40% towards future prospects, and applied a multiplier of 17, resulting in a loss-of-dependency figure of ₹18,97,812.

After recalculating the conventional heads at ₹2,53,000, the total compensation was determined at ₹21,17,812, as against the Tribunal’s award of ₹21,03,620.

The resulting enhancement was ₹14,192.

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal was enhanced from ₹21,03,620 to ₹21,17,812, granting the claimants an additional ₹14,192.

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

All other terms and conditions of the Tribunal’s award were maintained.

The Registry was directed to communicate the enhanced amount to the claimants in Hindi/Devanagari, with assistance from paralegal workers where necessary.