Compensation must reflect the notified monthly notional income of ₹12,000 for skilled workmen.

On 4 February 2021, the appellant, Sri Bikash Debnath, sustained injuries in a motor-vehicle accident involving bus No. TR-01-B-1397 and truck No. AS-01-DD-8999.

He instituted a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 1, West Tripura, in T.S. (MAC) No. 218 of 2022.

Following trial, the Tribunal awarded compensation of ₹9,47,000 by judgment and award dated 6 February 2026.

The claimant appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhancement of compensation.

The High Court noted that the appellant was employed as a mason, categorised as a skilled labourer, and that the Tribunal had assessed his monthly income at ₹10,000.

1. Whether the monthly income of the injured claimant, working as a skilled mason, was required to be reassessed in light of the High Court Notification dated 4 August 2023 fixing the notional income of a skilled workman at ₹12,000 per month.

2. Whether the compensation for loss of future income due to disability was required to be recalculated on the basis of the enhanced monthly income.

3. What consequential directions should be issued regarding deposit and release of the enhanced compensation.

The Court applied Sections 168 and 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Section 168 empowers the Claims Tribunal to determine and award just compensation, while Section 173 provides the statutory right of appeal against the Tribunal’s award.

It further applied the High Court Notification dated 4 August 2023, which fixed the monthly notional income of a skilled workman at ₹12,000.

Loss of future income was calculated by applying the claimant’s assessed disability of 45 per cent, the annual income, and the multiplier of 15.

The Court found that the claimant’s occupation as a mason placed him within the category of skilled labour and therefore held that the Tribunal’s assessment of monthly income at ₹10,000 was lower than the notified notional income of ₹12,000.

Applying the 45 per cent disability factor, the enhanced monthly income, and the multiplier of 15, the Court recalculated the loss of future income as ₹5,400 × 12 × 15 = ₹9,72,000.

The amounts awarded under the remaining heads—including medical expenses, special diet, attendant charges, transportation and doctor’s fees, and pain and suffering—were left undisturbed.

The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount of ₹1,62,000, together with accrued interest, before the Tribunal within one month from receipt of the order.

The amount already deposited, including the sum placed in a five-year fixed deposit, was directed to be released to the claimant forthwith; the fixed-deposit condition was relaxed, permitting the claimant to withdraw and utilise the entire amount.

Any interim stay was vacated and pending applications, if any, were closed.