Motor accident compensation must apply notified minimum wages, future prospects, and prescribed conventional heads.

Ghasiram Patel, aged approximately 44 years, died in a road accident on 23 February 2017.

His widow, children, and mother filed a motor accident compensation claim against the driver, owner, and insurer.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sakti, awarded total compensation of ₹7,38,750 in Claim Case No. 35/2017, after assessing the deceased’s monthly income at ₹4,500 and awarding ₹30,000 under conventional heads.

The claimants filed the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement on the grounds that the income and conventional compensation had been assessed inadequately.

The insurance company opposed the appeal and supported the Tribunal’s award.

The Court exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to determine whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was just and adequate.

It applied the principles governing assessment of future prospects, deduction for personal and living expenses, and selection of the appropriate multiplier as laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121.

It also applied the principle concerning compensation for consortium and other conventional heads recognised in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 1305.

The Court relied on the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification to assess the deceased’s monthly income at ₹6,206, added 25% towards future prospects, deducted one-fourth towards personal expenses, and applied a multiplier of 14, having regard to the deceased’s age.

The Court found that the Tribunal had assessed the deceased’s income below the applicable statutory minimum-wage benchmark.

It therefore substituted the monthly income of ₹4,500 with ₹6,206, resulting in an annual income of ₹74,472.

Applying the principles in Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma, the Court added 25% towards future prospects, deducted one-fourth for personal expenses, and applied the multiplier of 14, calculating the loss of dependency at ₹9,77,452.

The Court further held that the Tribunal’s award of only ₹30,000 under conventional heads was inadequate and enhanced that amount to ₹2,30,000, comprising ₹15,000 each under the applicable conventional heads and ₹2,00,000 towards consortium-related compensation in accordance with the governing precedents.

The total compensation was consequently recalculated at ₹12,07,452.

The claimants were therefore held entitled to an additional ₹4,68,702, carrying interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application until realisation.

Appellant No. 2, Hemant Kumar, was directed to receive ₹40,000 from the enhanced amount.

All other terms of the Tribunal’s award were kept intact.

The Registry was directed to communicate the enhanced award to the claimants in Hindi Devanagari, with assistance from paralegal workers and the concerned Legal Services Authority.