The Chhattisgarh High Court has clarified that compensation in motor accident claims must reflect the statutory minimum wage for unskilled laborers and include conventional heads like special diet and attendant charges where permanent disability is established. This ruling reinforces the principle that tribunals cannot rely on arbitrary or undervalued income assumptions, especially when documentary proof is lacking but the claimant’s occupation is reasonably inferable.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The claimant-appellant, Raju Patel, sustained serious injuries in a motor accident on 19 June 2016 when his motorcycle was collided with a Bolero vehicle driven by the respondent. The injuries led to permanent disability, later confirmed by a Unique Disability ID issued by the Medical Board. The claimant alleged that the accident resulted in the amputation of his right leg below the knee in November 2019, which significantly impacted his ability to work as a driver.
Procedural History
- June 2016: Motor accident occurred at Robertson Canal, Raigarh
- 2018: Claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
- February 2021: Seventh Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal awarded Rs. 12,71,702/-
- 2021: Appeal filed before the Chhattisgarh High Court under Section 173 of the Act
Relief Sought
The appellant sought enhancement of compensation, arguing that the Tribunal erred in assessing permanent disability at 60% and fixing monthly income at Rs. 6,000/-, which was below the statutory minimum wage. He also sought inclusion of special diet and attendant charges, which were omitted.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether loss of earning in a motor accident claim must be calculated based on the statutory minimum wage for unskilled laborers when the claimant lacks documentary proof of income, and whether special diet and attendant charges are mandatory components of compensation for permanent disability.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant’s counsel argued that the Tribunal’s fixation of Rs. 6,000/- per month as notional income was arbitrary and below the minimum wage of Rs. 6,550/- applicable in July 2019 under Chhattisgarh’s wage matrix. He contended that the claimant’s occupation as a driver was reasonably established by his driving license and employment at St. John School, and that the Tribunal’s failure to apply the minimum wage standard violated the principle of fair compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He further urged that special diet and attendant charges are compensable under settled jurisprudence for permanent disabilities.
For the Respondent
The Insurance Company’s counsel opposed the enhancement, asserting that the claimant failed to produce any documentary evidence - such as appointment letters, salary slips, or bank statements - to substantiate his employment or income. He argued that the Tribunal’s award was within reasonable bounds and that the amputation could not be conclusively linked to the accident due to the three-year gap, thereby justifying the 60% disability assessment.
The Court's Analysis
The Court acknowledged the absence of documentary proof regarding the claimant’s employment but emphasized that in the absence of contrary evidence, a claimant’s occupation inferred from credible circumstances must be accepted. The Court noted that the claimant held a valid driving license and was engaged in driving duties, which, in the context of rural Chhattisgarh, strongly supports the inference of employment as a driver.
"The Tribunal ought to have applied the minimum wage for unskilled laborers as the baseline for calculating loss of earning, especially when the claimant’s occupation is reasonably established and no higher income is proven."
Regarding the amputation, the Court held that while the claimant failed to establish a direct medical nexus between the accident and the amputation, the 60% permanent disability was properly assessed based on the Unique Disability ID and medical evidence. However, the Court found that the Tribunal’s omission of special diet and attendant charges was legally untenable. Citing National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain and Karnal Transport Co. v. Smt. Sushila Devi, the Court held that such heads are not discretionary but mandatory for permanent disabilities, as they represent necessary post-accident expenses.
The Court further clarified that notional income must be anchored to the statutory minimum wage when no higher income is proven, rejecting the Tribunal’s reliance on an arbitrary figure.
The Verdict
The appellant succeeded in part. The Chhattisgarh High Court held that loss of earning must be calculated using the statutory minimum wage and that special diet and attendant charges are mandatory components of compensation for permanent disability. The compensation was enhanced from Rs. 12,71,702/- to Rs. 14,25,950/-, with the Insurance Company directed to pay the additional Rs. 1,54,248/- within 60 days.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Minimum Wage Is the Floor for Notional Income
- Practitioners must now argue that notional income in motor accident claims must be based on the applicable state minimum wage for unskilled laborers when no salary proof exists
- Tribunals cannot rely on arbitrary figures like Rs. 5,000/- or Rs. 6,000/- without statutory justification
- Driving license, witness testimony, and local employment patterns can collectively establish occupation
Special Diet and Attendant Charges Are Non-Discretionary
- These heads must be included in every award involving permanent disability, regardless of whether specifically claimed
- Failure to award them constitutes a legal error warranting appellate interference
- Amounts should be reasonable: Rs. 30,000/- each is now a recognized benchmark in High Courts
Medical Nexus Requires Reasonable Inference, Not Absolute Proof
- While direct medical evidence linking amputation to accident is ideal, tribunals must assess cumulative evidence
- A three-year gap does not automatically negate causation if disability progression is medically plausible
- Unique Disability ID and medical reports remain critical evidence for assessing permanent impairment
