Motor accident compensation must be computed using applicable minimum wages and consortium for each eligible claimant.

The appellants, being the claimants and dependants of deceased Irfan Ansari, challenged under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the award dated 15 November 2021 passed in Claim Case No. H-74/2019.

The Claims Tribunal had awarded total compensation of ₹6,44,800 for the deceased’s death in a motor accident dated 20 April 2019.

The claimants asserted that the deceased was employed at Tegi Tyre Workshop, Patewa, repairing punctured tyres and earning ₹12,000 per month, supported principally by the testimony of Nabi Khan, the workshop owner.

The Tribunal disbelieved the claimed income and assessed it at ₹4,000 per month as the minimum wage for unskilled labour.

The claimants sought enhancement on the grounds of erroneous assessment of income and inadequate compensation under the conventional heads.

The insurer supported the Tribunal’s award.

The Court exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which permits an aggrieved party to challenge an award of the Claims Tribunal.

For computation of dependency compensation, it applied National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, particularly the principles governing addition for future prospects and standard 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 1305, concerning compensation for consortium to eligible claimants.

The Court accepted the applicable Chhattisgarh minimum wage for unskilled labour, assessed at ₹8,400 per month for the relevant period, added 40% towards future prospects, deducted one-half towards personal expenses, and applied a multiplier of 18.

The Court rejected the claim of ₹12,000 monthly income because the claimants had not produced credible evidence establishing the deceased’s employment at the workshop or payment of that salary, notwithstanding the testimony of Nabi Khan.

However, the Tribunal’s assessment of ₹4,000 was also found inadequate. Considering the accident date, the deceased’s employment category, and the applicable minimum-wage notification, the Court fixed the monthly income at ₹8,400.

As the deceased was self-employed and aged 22 years, the Court upheld the addition of 40% for future prospects, deduction of one-half towards personal expenditure, and application of the multiplier of 18.

Applying these principles, the loss of dependency was calculated at ₹12,70,080.

The Court further enhanced consortium from ₹10,000 to ₹1,20,000, calculated at ₹40,000 for each of the three claimants, while retaining ₹15,000 each for loss of estate and funeral expenses.

The compensation was enhanced from ₹6,44,800 to ₹14,20,080, resulting in an additional award of ₹7,75,280 in favour of the appellants.

The enhanced amount was directed to carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application 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 assistance from paralegal workers where necessary.