A homemaker’s disability compensation must reflect applicable minimum wages and future prospects.

On 19 May 2011, the appellant, a homemaker, was travelling in an auto-rickshaw/chhakado from Kalol to Vadodara. The vehicle collided from behind with a stationary truck-trailer allegedly parked on the highway without side-signals or reflectors, causing the appellant serious injuries, including a fracture of the D-12 vertebra resulting in paraplegia and 100% functional disability.

In MACP No. 363 of 2013, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vadodara awarded ₹8,75,100 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.

The claimant challenged the award before the High Court solely on the quantum of compensation.

Whether the claimant’s notional monthly income ought to be reassessed with reference to the applicable minimum wages, with an addition for future prospects, for computing loss of future income.

Whether the compensation awarded for pain, shock and suffering was inadequate in view of the claimant’s paraplegia and 100% disability.

Whether compensation was payable under the heads of loss of amenities of life, future medical expenses and future attendant charges.

Whether interest on the amount awarded towards future medical expenses and future attendant charges was payable from the date of filing of the claim petition or only from the date of the Tribunal’s award.

The Court applied the compensation principles under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, requiring an award of just compensation for established pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss.

In the absence of cogent evidence of actual income, the applicable minimum wages may be adopted for determining loss of earning capacity.

Relying on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, and Sidram v. The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 INSC 1202, the Court held that 40% could be added towards future prospects for a claimant aged about 30 years.

The multiplier method was applied to the established 100% functional disability, using a multiplier of 17.

For future medical expenses and future attendant charges, relying on R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1995 SCC (1) 551, the Court directed that interest would run only from the date of the Tribunal’s award.

Since the claimant was a homemaker and no reliable evidence of income was produced, the Tribunal’s assessment of ₹3,000 per month was replaced by the prevailing minimum wage for a skilled worker, ₹4,660 per month.

Applying the 40% future-prospects addition, the monthly income became ₹6,524.

As the claimant’s 100% functional disability was undisputed, the Court applied a multiplier of 17 and calculated future loss of income at ₹13,30,896.

Given the claimant’s paraplegia, bedridden condition and continuing pain, compensation for pain, shock and suffering was enhanced from ₹30,000 to ₹3,00,000.

The permanent deprivation of a normal life justified ₹3,00,000 for loss of amenities.

Considering the medical evidence and the claimant’s continuing needs, ₹4,00,000 was awarded for future medical expenses and future attendant charges, but interest on that component was restricted to the period from the date of the Tribunal’s award.

The amounts already awarded under medical expenses, special diet and transportation, and attendant charges were maintained.

The total compensation was enhanced to ₹25,63,996, comprising ₹13,30,896 for future loss of income, ₹3,00,000 for loss of amenities, ₹46,100 for medical expenses, ₹3,00,000 for pain, shock and suffering, ₹10,000 for special diet and transportation, ₹1,77,000 for attendant charges, and ₹4,00,000 for future medical expenses and future attendant charges.

After deducting the Tribunal’s award of ₹8,75,100, the claimant became entitled to an additional ₹16,88,896.

Interest at 9% per annum was directed on the additional amount from the date of filing of the claim petition, except for the ₹4,00,000 awarded towards future medical expenses and future attendant charges, on which interest would run from the date of the Tribunal’s award.

Respondent No. 6 was directed to deposit the additional compensation and applicable interest within six weeks, after which the Tribunal was to disburse the amount subject to verification and deduction of any deficit court fee.