Crash Victim’s Family Gets ₹11,000 More as Chhattisgarh HC Keeps His Income at ₹9,300 for Lack of Proof He Was a Driver

In brief

The question

Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of the deceased’s monthly income at ₹9,300, and its calculation of dependency compensation, warranted interference.

The court held

The appeal was partly allowed.

It also directed

Total compensation was enhanced from ₹19,84,880 to ₹19,95,880, entitling the appellants to an additional ₹11,000, with interest at 6% per annum from the date the claim application was filed until realization.

The remaining terms of the Tribunal’s award were left undisturbed.

The Registry was directed to communicate the enhanced amount to the claimants in Hindi (Devanagari), with paralegal assistance if required.

01Facts

The appellants sought enhancement of compensation awarded for the death of Mohan Dewangan in a road accident on 15 January 2022.

¶ 1–3

The Claims Tribunal assessed his monthly income at ₹9,300, applied 40% for future prospects, deducted one-third for personal expenses, used a multiplier of 18, and awarded total compensation of ₹19,84,880.

¶ 1–3

The appellants argued that the deceased was a skilled driver and had part-time employment, earning ₹25,000 per month, and that the conventional-heads award was inadequate.

¶ 1–3

The insurer opposed enhancement.

¶ 1–3

02Issues

i.Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of the deceased’s monthly income at ₹9,300, and its calculation of dependency compensation, warranted interference.

¶ 2, 5–6

ii.Whether the award under conventional heads required enhancement, and, if so, what additional compensation was payable.

¶ 2, 7–9

03Law Applied

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for an appeal against an award of the Claims Tribunal.

¶ 1

In assessing compensation for death, the Court applied the principles in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors., (2009) 6 SCC 121, concerning the multiplier and deduction for personal expenses; National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, concerning future prospects and conventional heads; and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors., (2018) 18 SCC 130, concerning compensation under conventional heads.

¶ 6–8

The Court applied a 10% enhancement to the conventional-heads amounts, increasing the total under those heads from ₹1,10,000 to ₹1,21,000.

¶ 7

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173

04Reasoning

The Court found no cogent evidence that the deceased worked as a driver or earned the claimed higher income; no driving licence had been produced.

¶ 5–8

It therefore upheld the Tribunal’s treatment of him as an unskilled worker and its ₹9,300 monthly income assessment.

¶ 5–8

It also upheld the 40% addition for future prospects, one-third deduction for personal expenses, and multiplier of 18.

¶ 5–8

However, it found that the conventional-heads award required a 10% enhancement, recalculating those amounts as ₹44,000 for each of the two claimants and ₹16,500 each for funeral expenses and loss of estate.

¶ 5–8