Minimum wage notifications govern income assessment for skilled laborers, including mandatory consortium for all dependents.

The appellants, comprising the widow, five children, and parents of the deceased Saheblal, challenged the award dated 16-05-2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Janjgir-Champa

Saheblal, a 46-year-old skilled carpenter, died in a motor accident involving a vehicle insured by the respondent Insurance Company

The Tribunal initially awarded a total compensation of ₹ 10,06,000, calculating the deceased's income at ₹ 7,500 per month

The appellants sought enhancement of this amount, arguing that the income should have been assessed per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification

1. Whether the Tribunal failed to correctly assess the monthly income of the deceased in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification

2. Whether the compensation awarded under the heads of "future prospects" and "loss of consortium" was insufficient or contrary to established legal precedents

The Court exercised its appellate jurisdiction under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

It applied the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification to determine the base income for skilled labor

For the calculation of future prospects, the Court relied on National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017), which mandates a 25% addition for deceased individuals aged between 40 to 50 years

The multiplier of 13 and the 1/5 deduction for personal expenses (given the eight dependents) were governed by Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009)

Lastly, the Court applied Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors (2018) to award parental and filial consortium to the children and parents of the deceased

The Court determined that the Tribunal erred by fixing the monthly income at ₹ 7,500, noting that as a skilled laborer, Saheblal’s income should be ₹ 9,530 per month as per the relevant minimum wage notification

The Court corrected the "Future Prospects" calculation by adding 25% (₹ 28,590) to the annual income, which the Tribunal had previously omitted

While the Tribunal applied a 1/5 deduction for personal expenses, the Court maintained this ratio but applied it to the higher recalculated income

The Court further identified a significant deficiency in the non-pecuniary damages; the Tribunal had only awarded consortium to the wife

Following the mandate in Magma General, the Court awarded an additional ₹ 44,000 each to the seven other claimants (children and parents), totaling ₹ 3,08,000 for loss of consortium

The Court held that the appellants are entitled to an additional sum of ₹ 8,58,680

The respondent Insurance Company was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within 45 days of the order, with interest at the rate of 8% per annum calculated from the date of the claim application (20-09-2018) until the date of realization

All other conditions of the original award remained intact