Compensation in motor accident claims must be based on prevailing minimum wages and include all statutory heads like future prospects and consortium, while deductions for contributory negligence require cogent evidence rather than mere assumptions about the accident's nature.

Digitally ANKIT signed by KUMAR ANKIT SINGH KUMAR SINGH

Judgment On Board

1. Since the common question of law and facts are involved in the present two appeals, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. These two appeals have been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”). MAC No. 2061 of 2019 has been filed against the impugned award dated 20.02.2019 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 35/2018 and another MAC No.2030 of 2019 has been filed against the impugned award dated 20.02.2019 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 34/2018, seeking enhancement in the compensation amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

3. Mr. Anurag Verma, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has wrongly deducted the ¼ amount from the compensation as there is no evidence in this regard. He would also submit that the Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding less amount of compensation in the facts of the present cases. He would further submit that the Claims Tribunal has wrongly assessed the monthly income of the deceased persons to be ₹4,500/- each, whereas, the same should be ₹9,000/- each, per month as per Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. He would further submit that future prospect has not been awarded and also under the heads of loss of estate, towards love and affection and under the head of consortium amount has not been awarded by the Claims Tribunal which is liable to be awarded.

4. Mr. Deepak Gupta, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, would oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and support the impugned award. He would also submit that the Claims Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount which does not call for interference.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection.

6. Learned Claims Tribunal has deducted ¼ of the compensation amount on the ground of contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the auto on which deceased persons were traveling. However, except the fact that the auto and the offending vehicle met with the accident from the front side no evidence has been led by the Insurance Company with regard to the contributory negligence. As such, deduction of ¼ of the compensation amount on the ground of contributory negligence is hereby set aside. In absence of any cogent evidence. Furthermore, the Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of deceased persons to be ₹4,500/- each however, in the opinion of this Court, as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, the monthly income of the deceased should be ₹9,000/- each, per month (as per minimum wages prescribed at relevant time). Moreover, under the heads of loss of estate, towards love and affection and under the head of consortium amount has not been awarded by the Claims Tribunal which is liable to be awarded and future prospect is liable to be awarded.

7. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insuranc