A skilled mason’s income may be assessed at ₹6,000 monthly despite the absence of income records.

Jayanand, aged 42, died on 27 June 2008 when a bus in which he was travelling fell into a ditch.

His family claimed that he worked as a skilled mason and earned ₹10,000 per month.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) found negligence and the insurer’s liability established, assessed his income at ₹3,000 per month, and awarded ₹3,98,000.

The claimants appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement.

During the appeal, the deceased’s father, one of the appellants, died.

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for an appeal against a MACT award.

Under Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 13 SCC 236, a worker’s income need not be rejected merely because documentary proof is unavailable; the tribunal may use reasonable estimation, having regard to the facts and prevailing realities.

The Court relied on Suresh Jatav v. Sukhendra Singh, 2025 INSC 821, which accepted ₹6,000 per month as a reasonable income for a skilled mason in 2008.

Under National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, a self-employed or fixed-salary deceased aged 40–50 is entitled to a 25% addition for future prospects; the applicable conventional amounts include ₹40,000 for consortium and ₹15,000 each for loss of estate and funeral expenses.

Consortium may be awarded to eligible family members, including spousal and parental consortium, in accordance with Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur.

The Tribunal had discounted the income evidence solely because the claimants produced no documentary proof. Applying Ramachandrappa and Suresh Jatav, the Court held that the deceased’s work as a skilled mason supported an assessment of ₹6,000 per month.

It retained the multiplier of 14 and the one-fourth deduction for personal expenses, and added 25% for future prospects because the deceased was 42.

Applying the principles on consortium and conventional heads, the Court awarded ₹40,000 to each of four eligible claimants for consortium and ₹15,000 each for loss of estate and funeral expenses.

The Tribunal’s findings on negligence and the validity of the vehicle documents were supported by the record and had become final; the Court found no basis to disturb them.

The insurer was directed to pay within two months.

The award was apportioned 50% to the deceased’s wife, 25% jointly to his two children, and 25% to his mother.