Compensation must be assessed using applicable minimum wages where no concrete income evidence exists.

Dalpatsinh Navalsinh Solanki died after being hit by Jeep No. GJ-8-V-6242, allegedly driven rashly and negligently while he was walking near Dhanera after performing election duty. He was taken to hospital but died during treatment

His legal heirs filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming ₹8,00,000 as compensation. The deceased was stated to be approximately 40 years old, working as a Home Guard and also engaged in agriculture and animal husbandry

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal assessed his monthly income at ₹2,500, deducted one-fourth towards personal expenses, and awarded ₹3,72,500 with interest at 8% per annum

The claimants appealed, seeking enhancement on the grounds that the income, future prospects, consortium and other conventional heads had been assessed inadequately.

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal required enhancement on account of incorrect assessment of the deceased’s income, future prospects and personal-expense deduction?

Whether the claimants were entitled to compensation under the heads of loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate in accordance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court?

What would be the just and fair compensation payable to the claimants, and what additional amount was required to be deposited by the insurer?

The Court applied Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which permits legal representatives of a deceased accident victim to claim just compensation from the persons liable for the accident.

Relying on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, it applied the principles governing addition for future prospects and the standardized amounts under conventional heads.

Under Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780, consortium is payable to each eligible claimant, along with appropriate amounts for funeral expenses and loss of estate.

The Court also relied on Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 871, for adopting minimum wages where there was no reliable evidence of actual income.

For a 40-year-old deceased without a permanent source of income, the Court applied a 25% addition for future prospects and a multiplier of 15; considering seven dependants, it deducted one-fifth towards personal expenses.

The accident, negligence of the jeep driver and the insurer’s liability were not disputed.

Since there was no concrete evidence establishing the deceased’s actual income, the Court adopted ₹2,800 per month as the applicable minimum wage for a skilled worker.

It added 25% towards future prospects, bringing the monthly income to ₹3,500, and deducted one-fifth, or ₹700, towards personal expenses because there were seven claimants.

The resulting monthly dependency was ₹2,800, which, multiplied by 12 and by the multiplier of 15, produced ₹5,04,000 towards loss of dependency.

The Court further awarded ₹48,400 as consortium to each of the seven claimants, totalling ₹3,38,800, and granted ₹18,150 each for funeral expenses and loss of estate. The total compensation was therefore recalculated at ₹8,79,100, from which the Tribunal’s award of ₹3,72,500 was deducted.

The claimants were held entitled to the enhanced amount of ₹5,06,600, together with interest at 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization.

The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced compensation before the Tribunal within eight weeks, after which the Tribunal was directed to disburse the entire awarded amount, including accrued interest, to the claimants in accordance with law.