Absent proof of income, compensation must reflect skilled-worker minimum wages and 40% future prospects.

On 4 December 2012, the appellant, while standing by the roadside near Jafarpur village, was struck by a Tata Indica car allegedly driven rashly and negligently. He suffered grievous injuries, including fractures of the tibia and fibula, underwent surgery, and remained hospitalised for 61 days

He claimed that he was 25 years old and earned ₹13,000 per month through masonry and agricultural work, but the income was not proved by cogent evidence

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded ₹9,45,421 with interest at 9% per annum up to 31 March 2021 and 7% per annum thereafter

The claimant appealed, challenging the quantum of compensation.

The vehicle owner contended that he had sold and delivered possession of the vehicle before the accident, but he did not produce the registration certificate or otherwise prove the transfer

Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the appellant’s monthly income at ₹3,800 and whether the compensation under the heads of future loss of income, actual loss of income, pain and suffering, and special diet, attendant and transportation expenses required enhancement?

Whether the vehicle owner established that he had transferred ownership and possession of the offending vehicle before the accident, thereby avoiding liability?

Whether the insurer was required to satisfy the award first, with liberty to recover the amount from the vehicle owner?

The Court applied the principle that, where claimed income is not proved by reliable evidence, compensation may be assessed on the basis of the minimum wages applicable to the relevant category of worker

It relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, and Sidram v. The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 INSC 1202, for adding 40% towards future prospects for a claimant aged about 25 years

Loss of future income is calculated by applying the appropriate multiplier to the income, future prospects, and functional disability; for a 25-year-old claimant, the multiplier is 18

The Court further applied the evidentiary principle that a party asserting prior transfer of ownership must establish it through appropriate documentary or other cogent evidence

The insurer’s obligation to pay first and recover from the liable owner was maintained in accordance with the Tribunal’s direction

The Court held that the appellant’s asserted income of ₹13,000 per month was unproved, but the Tribunal’s assessment of ₹3,800 per month was below the applicable minimum wage for a skilled worker.

Since the accident occurred in December 2012, the Court reassessed the monthly income at ₹5,180

Applying 40% future prospects, the monthly income became ₹7,252; applying 50% functional disability, 12 months, and the multiplier of 18, the future loss of income was calculated at ₹7,83,216

The Court enhanced pain and suffering from ₹30,000 to ₹50,000, considering the fractures, surgery, insertion of an iron bar, and 61 days of hospitalisation, and increased special diet, attendant and transportation expenses from ₹20,000 to ₹30,000

Actual loss of income for six months was recalculated at ₹31,080 on the reassessed monthly income, while medical expenses of ₹3,01,861 and the undisputed 50% functional disability were retained

The revised total compensation was ₹11,96,157, resulting in an enhancement of ₹2,50,736

The owner’s plea of prior sale was rejected because it was unsupported by the registration certificate or other sufficient evidence.

The total compensation was enhanced from ₹9,45,421 to ₹11,96,157, and the appellant was awarded an additional ₹2,50,736, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until 31 March 2021 and 7% per annum thereafter until realization

The insurer was directed to deposit and satisfy the entire award, including the enhanced amount, within six weeks, with liberty to recover the amount from the vehicle owner through execution proceedings

The Tribunal was directed to disburse the amount after verification and deduction of any deficit court fee; there was no order as to costs