Absence of salary proof necessitates use of prevailing minimum wages for calculating motor accident dependency compensation.

On May 12, 2018, Rakesh Maheshbhai Makwana and his wife Ramilaben were riding a motorcycle when they were struck by a rashly driven truck, resulting in their deaths

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Kheda at Nadiad, partially allowed the claim petitions (MACPs 600 & 601 of 2018) via a common judgment dated February 6, 2024

The appellants challenged the award on the limited ground of quantum, specifically arguing that the Tribunal erred in fixing notional income at ₹6,000 p.m. instead of ₹9,000 p.m. and failing to award loss of consortium

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the notional income of the deceased persons and failing to apply prevailing minimum wages

2. Whether the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation under the heads of loss of consortium and conventional heads as per settled precedents

The Court applied the principles from *Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation* [2009 (6) SCC 121] for determining the multiplier and deductions for personal expenses

It relied on *National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi* [2017 (16) SCC 680] to grant a 40% addition for future prospects and define conventional heads (loss of estate and funeral expenses)

Regarding undetermined income, the court applied *Govind Yadav v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.* [2012 (1) TAC 1 (SC)], holding that in the absence of salary proof, the prevailing minimum wages must be considered

Furthermore, for loss of consortium, it applied the standards set in *Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram* [(2018) 18 SCC 130] and *Janabai v. ICICI Lombard Insurance Co. Ltd.* [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 666]

The High Court observed that while the claimants could not strictly prove a monthly income of ₹9,000, the Tribunal’s assessment of ₹6,000 was lower than the government-approved minimum wages for 2018, which stood at ₹7,910 p.m.

The Court accepted the Tribunal’s use of 1/3rd deduction for personal expenses and an 18 multiplier based on the deceased's ages (approx. 22-23 years)

For First Appeal 1816/2024 (husband's death), the Court added ₹96,800 for parental consortium, which the Tribunal had omitted

However, in First Appeal 1820/2024 (wife's death), the Court declined consortium to the father-in-law and mother-in-law as they did not fall under the entitled category for this specific head

The Court also adjusted conventional heads to ₹18,150 each to reflect current legal standards

In First Appeal 1816/2024, the total compensation was increased from ₹12,45,600 to ₹17,27,180 (an addition of ₹4,81,580)

In First Appeal 1820/2024, the compensation was increased from ₹14,31,590 to ₹18,16,370 (an addition of ₹3,84,780)

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the additional amounts with interest as awarded by the Tribunal within four weeks

Deficit court fees on the enhanced amounts are to be deducted before disbursement to the claimants