In absence of documentary proof, deceased’s income may be assessed using prevailing minimum wages.

On 18 August 2020, Sandeep Dhritlahre died in a motor accident allegedly caused by the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1, who was also the owner of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. C.G.-28-E-4355. His widow, four minor children, and father filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of ₹41,00,000 under various heads

The IX Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, awarded total compensation of ₹19,15,332 by its award dated 17 September 2025. The claimants appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking enhancement, particularly on the basis that the deceased’s monthly income was ₹13,500 rather than ₹7,555 and that the amounts under conventional heads were inadequate

The Court exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 over a claim adjudicated under Section 166.

In assessing compensation, it applied the principles in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, including the addition for future prospects and standardized amounts under conventional heads; Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, concerning deduction for personal expenses and selection of the multiplier; and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130, concerning consortium compensation to eligible dependants. In the absence of documentary proof, the Court assessed income on the basis of prevalent market rates and applicable Chhattisgarh minimum wages.

The Court found that the Tribunal’s assessment of monthly income at ₹7,555 was low. Although the claimants had asserted an income of ₹13,500 per month, no documentary evidence supported that figure. The Court therefore adopted ₹8,860 per month, treating the deceased as an unskilled labourer in accordance with the applicable Chhattisgarh minimum wages.

On that basis, the annual income was calculated at ₹1,06,320; 40% was added towards future prospects, one-fourth was deducted for personal expenses because there were six dependants, and the multiplier of 17 was retained for the deceased’s age of 26 years. This resulted in loss of dependency of ₹18,97,812. The Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal’s awards of ₹2,64,000 towards consortium for six claimants, ₹16,500 towards loss of estate, and ₹16,500 towards funeral expenses, as those amounts were not inadequate.

After deducting the amount already awarded, the appellants were held entitled to an additional ₹2,79,480, carrying interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application until realization. The remaining conditions of the Tribunal’s award were left undisturbed.