Absent income evidence, a deceased’s income must be assessed using Gujarat’s prevailing minimum wages for skilled workers.

The claimants appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded in MACP No. 456 of 2013 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Jamnagar. The Tribunal had awarded Rs. 4,67,000.

The High Court noted that the accident and the liability of the vehicle owner and insurer were not disputed; the appeal concerned the adequacy and calculation of compensation.

The judgment does not set out further details about the accident or the deceased’s circumstances.

1. Whether the Tribunal properly assessed the deceased’s income and the resulting loss of dependency.

2. Whether the amounts awarded under conventional heads, including loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium, required enhancement.

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

The Court treated the Act as beneficial legislation requiring just and fair compensation assessed on principles of fairness, reasonableness, and equity.

Relying on Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 871, it stated that where the deceased’s income is not established by evidence, the prevailing minimum wages for a skilled worker in Gujarat should be used.

It also relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, for conventional compensation under loss of estate and funeral expenses, and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780, for consortium.

The Court found that the Tribunal had not properly considered the deceased’s monthly income. Applying Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel, it assessed compensation using the applicable minimum wages for a skilled worker, and fixed future dependency loss at Rs. 7,59,024.

It also awarded Rs. 18,150 each for loss of estate and funeral expenses, and recorded Rs. 2,42,000 for consortium.

The Court calculated total compensation at Rs. 10,37,324 and, after deducting the Tribunal’s award of Rs. 4,67,000, determined an enhancement of Rs. 5,70,324.

The judgment states that consortium was Rs. 48,400 for each of four dependants, which would total Rs. 1,93,600; that does not match the recorded consortium figure of Rs. 2,42,000 or the total compensation calculated by the Court.

The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount with interest within six weeks of receiving the order.

The Tribunal was directed to disburse the amount held by it, subject to verification, due procedure, and deduction of any unpaid court fees; the remaining directions of the Tribunal were left unchanged.