A claimant’s occupation as an airport taxi driver justifies higher notional income absent proof of earnings.

The claimant sustained injuries, including an open comminuted fracture of the right patella with retinacular injury, in a road traffic accident on 10 April 2023 involving a tractor.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal assessed his whole-body disability at 13% and awarded total compensation of Rs. 6,23,106, with interest at 6% per annum.

The claimant appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement.

The High Court considered the appeal with the consent of counsel for the claimant and insurer.

Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of the claimant’s monthly income for calculating loss of future income should be enhanced, given his occupation as an airport taxi driver and the absence of documentary income proof.

Whether the compensation awarded under pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and loss of income during the laid-up period required enhancement in light of the claimant’s injuries and occupation.

The appeal was brought under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides for an appeal against an award of a Claims Tribunal.

In assessing compensation for permanent disability, the Court applied the multiplier method, taking account of the claimant’s age, monthly income, and percentage of whole-body disability.

Where documentary proof of income was absent, the Court assessed income having regard to the claimant’s occupation and driving licence; compensation for the laid-up period was assessed by reference to the period of rest warranted by the injuries and occupation.

No precedent was cited.

The Court accepted the Tribunal’s multiplier of 16, based on the claimant’s age of 33 at the time of the accident, and retained the undisputed 13% whole-body disability assessment.

Although the claimant had not produced income proof, his driving licence authorised him to drive a light motor vehicle and he was stated to work as an airport taxi driver. The Court therefore fixed his monthly income at Rs. 18,000 rather than the Tribunal’s Rs. 16,000 and recalculated loss of future income at Rs. 4,49,280.

Having regard to the fracture and his occupation, it enhanced compensation for pain and suffering and loss of amenities, and assessed three months’ loss of income during recovery at Rs. 54,000.

It left the awards for attendant and conveyance charges, medical expenses, and future medical expenses unchanged.

The Court enhanced total compensation to Rs. 7,25,026, granting an additional Rs. 1,01,920 over the Tribunal’s award, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition until realization.

The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced compensation and interest before the Tribunal within six weeks, and the claimant was permitted to withdraw the entire enhanced amount.