01Facts
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.
¶ 8The 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.
¶ 8The appeal was filed with a delay of 102 days, for which the appellants sought condonation.
¶ 1–4The appellants challenged the income assessment and contended that the amounts awarded under the conventional heads were inadequate.
¶ 902Issues
i.Whether the delay of 102 days in filing the appeal should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act?
¶ 1–4ii.Whether the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the deceased’s monthly income at ₹10,000 instead of the claimed ₹15,000?
¶ 9, 13iii.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?
¶ 9, 14–1603Law Applied
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.
¶ 1, 8For 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.
¶ 9, 14–15The 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.
¶ 13Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173
04Reasoning
The Court found sufficient grounds to condone the 102-day delay and accordingly allowed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
¶ 4On 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.
¶ 13However, 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.
¶ 14–1605Holding
The delay was condoned and the appeal was admitted and finally heard with the consent of the parties.
¶ 4–7The appeal was partly allowed.
¶ 16The 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.
¶ 16The 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.
¶ 17The Registry was directed to communicate the enhanced amount to the claimants in Hindi Devanagari, with assistance from paralegal workers if necessary.
¶ 18Original Court PDF
ISHWARI SAHUvsCHANDRASHEKHAR SONWANI
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
