The Chhattisgarh High Court has clarified that motor accident tribunals must assess the notional income of deceased victims based on their actual skill level rather than defaulting to unskilled labor rates. This judgment enhances compensation for semi-skilled workers and establishes that tribunals must consider minimum wage matrices applicable to the deceased's profession when documentary evidence of actual income is unavailable.
Background & Facts
The Accident
On 24 August 2022 at approximately 11:40 PM, Hitesh Mahant was riding a motorcycle near Kashichua Chowk, Raigarh when a truck bearing registration number CG-15-DX-9926 struck the vehicle. The 23-year-old tailor sustained fatal injuries and died en route to the hospital. The claimants, being the parents of the deceased, filed a compensation claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking Rs. 61,00,000 for the loss of their son.
Procedural History
The case progressed through the following stages:
- 2022: Claim application filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh
- 2024: Tribunal awarded Rs. 15,63,448 with 7.5% interest, treating the deceased as an unskilled laborer
- 2024: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the income assessment
The Parties' Positions
The appellants contended that their son was a skilled tailor earning Rs. 15,000 per month, while the insurance company argued that the tribunal's award was just and proper.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the High Court was whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred in law by:
- Treating the deceased as an unskilled laborer despite evidence of his skilled profession as a tailor
- Assessing notional income at Rs. 9,540 per month instead of applying the minimum wage matrix for semi-skilled laborers in Chhattisgarh
Arguments Presented
For the Appellants
The appellants' counsel argued that:
- The deceased was a skilled tailor, as evidenced by the claim application and testimony of Padum Das (AW/1)
- The tribunal failed to consider the minimum wage matrix applicable to semi-skilled laborers in Chhattisgarh, which prescribed Rs. 10,700 per month in August 2022
- No contrary evidence was led by the insurance company during cross-examination to dispute the deceased's profession or income
For the Respondent (Insurance Company)
The insurance company's counsel contended that:
- The tribunal's award was just and proper in all respects
- The compensation calculation methodology followed established precedents
- The appeal deserved dismissal as no legal error was committed by the tribunal
The Court's Analysis
The High Court conducted a meticulous examination of the evidence and legal principles governing compensation assessment in motor accident claims.
The Court first established that the claimants had consistently maintained that the deceased was a tailor earning Rs. 15,000 per month, both in their pleadings and through the testimony of Padum Das. Crucially, the Court noted that:
"In cross-examination, no question was put by Insurance Company to prove the contrary. Taking into consideration the evidence led by the claimants with regard to profession of deceased, it would be apt to consider the deceased a 'semi-skilled laborer'."
The Court then addressed the core legal principle at issue:
"Learned Tribunal has treated the deceased to be an unskilled laborer and assessed his monthly income to be Rs. 9,540/- whereas according to the minimum wage matrix applicable in the State of Chhattisgarh, minimum wages payable to semi-skilled laborer in August, 2022 was Rs. 10,700/- per month and learned Tribunal ought to have considered that figure."
The Court emphasized that tribunals must consider the actual skill level of the deceased when assessing notional income, particularly when:
- The claimants have specifically pleaded the deceased's profession
- Evidence has been led to support the claim of skilled labor
- No contrary evidence has been produced by the opposing party
The judgment distinguished between unskilled and semi-skilled laborers in compensation calculations, holding that:
"However, under other conventional heads learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation and same does not warrant any interference."
This analysis established that while the tribunal's approach to conventional heads of compensation was correct, its failure to properly classify the deceased's skill level resulted in an erroneous notional income assessment.
The Verdict
The High Court allowed the appeal in part and modified the tribunal's award. The key holdings were:
- The deceased was properly classified as a semi-skilled laborer based on the evidence
- The notional income was enhanced from Rs. 9,540 to Rs. 10,700 per month in accordance with the Chhattisgarh minimum wage matrix
- The total compensation was increased from Rs. 15,63,448 to Rs. 17,38,840
- The insurance company was directed to pay the additional Rs. 1,75,392 within 60 days
What This Means For Similar Cases
Tribunals Must Assess Skill Level Based On Evidence
Motor accident claims tribunals must now:
- Carefully examine evidence regarding the deceased's profession and skill level
- Apply the appropriate minimum wage matrix based on the established skill classification
- Provide reasoned justification when deviating from pleaded professions
Practitioners should ensure that:
- Claim applications specifically mention the deceased's profession and skill level
- Evidence is led to establish the nature of work performed by the deceased
- Minimum wage notifications applicable to the relevant skill category are produced
The Burden Of Proof In Income Assessment
The judgment clarifies that:
- The initial burden lies on claimants to establish the deceased's profession through pleadings and evidence
- Once this burden is discharged, the onus shifts to the insurance company to produce contrary evidence
- Failure to cross-examine on material aspects will be construed against the insurance company
Conventional Heads Remain Unaffected
While enhancing the notional income assessment, the Court maintained that:
- The tribunal's calculations under conventional heads (loss of estate, funeral expenses, loss of consortium) were correct
- These heads of compensation remain governed by established precedents and formulas
- Practitioners should continue to rely on standard calculations for these components
