Absent income evidence, motor-accident disability compensation must be assessed using prevailing minimum wages.

The claimant appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gondal’s award dated 9 February 2024 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 134 of 2016.

The Tribunal had awarded ₹2,13,800. The claimant sought enhancement, contending that the Tribunal had undervalued income and failed adequately to assess future prospects and other heads of compensation. The vehicle-related facts and the Tribunal’s liability findings were not disputed in the appeal.

1. Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of compensation was inadequate and required enhancement, including by applying the relevant minimum wage and allowing for future prospects.

2. Whether the Tribunal’s apportionment of negligence between the insured offending vehicles should be disturbed.

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for an appeal against a Claims Tribunal award. The governing principle is that compensation under the Act must be just, fair, reasonable and based on a realistic assessment of the loss, rather than being assessed niggardly; the Tribunal must endeavour to award just compensation.

Relying on Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 871, the Court applied the principle that, in the absence of concrete income evidence, minimum wages may be used to assess income. The Court also included future prospects in its computation.

The Court found that the Tribunal had erred in assessing compensation and, because the record contained no evidence of the claimant’s income, adopted ₹7,886 per month as the relevant minimum wage.

It added 40% for future prospects, applied the claimant’s 14% disability and multiplier of 17, and assessed future loss of income at ₹3,15,384. Adding actual loss of income, pain and suffering, medical expenses, and special diet, attendant and transportation expenses, it calculated total compensation at ₹3,95,042. After deducting the ₹2,13,800 already awarded, it determined the enhancement at ₹1,81,242.

The Court found no basis to alter the Tribunal’s 80:20 apportionment of negligence.

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the enhanced amount and interest within eight weeks; the Tribunal’s remaining directions, including the 80:20 apportionment, were maintained.