Compensation under conventional heads must follow Pranay Sethi, with consortium awarded separately to each claimant.

The appellants, being the widow, minor children and mother of Late Yogesh Sahu, filed an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded for his death in a motor accident on 14 March 2022 involving motorcycle No. CG-04/NF/0927.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, by award dated 10 May 2024 in MACC No. 873/2022, awarded total compensation of ₹16,62,500, assessing the deceased’s monthly income at ₹10,000 and awarding ₹1,20,000 under conventional heads.

The appeal was filed with a delay of 102 days, for which the appellants sought condonation.

The appellants challenged the income assessment and contended that the amounts awarded under the conventional heads were inadequate.

Whether the delay of 102 days in filing the appeal should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act?

Whether the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the deceased’s monthly income at ₹10,000 instead of the claimed ₹15,000?

Whether the compensation awarded under the conventional heads required enhancement in accordance with the principles laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi?

The Court applied Section 5 of the Limitation Act, permitting condonation of delay when sufficient cause is shown, and Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, governing appeals against awards of Claims Tribunals.

For compensation under conventional heads, the Court relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, which standardised and prescribed appropriate amounts for loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses, subject to applicable enhancement principles.

The Court also accepted the use of the applicable Chhattisgarh minimum-wage notification for assessing the income of an unskilled worker where the claimant fails to produce reliable documentary or testimonial evidence of actual income.

The Court found sufficient grounds to condone the 102-day delay and accordingly allowed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

On income, it held that although the claimants asserted that the deceased earned ₹15,000 per month from a steel-railing shop, no documentary evidence was produced and the employer was not examined. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in assessing income at ₹10,000 per month on the basis of the applicable minimum-wage notification.

However, the Court found the award under the conventional heads inconsistent with Pranay Sethi. It recalculated consortium for all four claimants at ₹44,000 each, loss of estate at ₹16,500 and funeral expenses at ₹16,500, resulting in a total of ₹2,09,000 instead of the ₹1,20,000 awarded by the Tribunal.

The appeal was partly allowed.

The appellants were awarded an additional ₹89,000 under the conventional heads, being the difference between ₹2,09,000 and the ₹1,20,000 already granted by the Tribunal.

The enhanced amount was directed to carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization. The award was modified to that extent, with the remaining conditions left undisturbed.

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