Absent income evidence, courts may assess motor-accident disability compensation using prevailing minimum wages.

The claimant was injured when the Maruti car in which he was travelling collided with a truck allegedly standing on the road without warning signals or safety measures.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Banaskantha at Palanpur, awarded ₹5,47,800 with 9% interest per annum in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 56 of 2014.

The claimant(s) appealed, seeking enhancement on the grounds that the Tribunal had undervalued income, omitted future prospects, and awarded inadequate amounts under other heads.

Whether the Tribunal had correctly assessed the claimant’s monthly income in the absence of evidence of actual income

Whether the claimant(s) were entitled to enhanced compensation, including for future prospects and under the heads of pain, shock and suffering, attendant charges, and transportation expenses

Sections 168 and 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 governed the determination of just compensation and the appeal, respectively.

Under Section 168, compensation must be fair, reasonable, and equitable, and should be determined to achieve just compensation even though the exercise cannot be arithmetically exact.

Relying on Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari, the Court applied the principle that, absent concrete evidence of income, minimum wages may be used to assess income; the quoted decision states that minimum wages for a skilled workman may be adopted for a minor claimant.

The Court also referred to Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon as authorities cited in Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel for that principle.

The Court found that the Tribunal had assessed monthly income at ₹3,500 despite the absence of evidence of actual income and adopted ₹5,610 per month, based on the minimum wages prevailing in Gujarat at the relevant time.

It added 40% for future prospects and applied a multiplier of 17, then assessed loss of future income at 45% disability, yielding ₹7,20,997.

It further awarded ₹33,660 for six months’ actual loss of income, ₹1,45,500 in medical expenses, ₹75,000 for pain, shock and suffering, and ₹30,000 for special diet, attendant charges, and transportation expenses, bringing total compensation to ₹10,05,157.

The Court enhanced total compensation from ₹5,47,800 to ₹10,05,157, leaving an additional ₹4,57,357 payable with 9% annual interest from the date of the claim petition until realization.

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within eight weeks; the Tribunal was directed to disburse the awarded amount, subject to verification and applicable court fees.