Courts must apply prevailing skilled-worker minimum wages when assessing compensation absent reliable income evidence.

The appellant-claimant sustained fracture injuries in a motor accident on 27 June 2010 while repairing trucks and underwent two surgeries—one for insertion of rods and screws in his right leg and another for their removal.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Sabarkantha at Modasa, awarded him ₹1,26,540 with interest at 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.

The Tribunal assessed the claimant’s income on a notional basis and accepted 12% physical/functional disability.

The claimant filed the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement of compensation.

The insurer accepted the Tribunal’s judgment and liability, while the original opponents did not contest the appeal.

The Court exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to examine the adequacy of the compensation award.

In assessing loss and awarding compensation, the Court applied the principle that, where there is no concrete evidence of actual income, the minimum wages prevailing for a worker of the relevant skill category at the time of the accident may be considered.

Relying on Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 871, the Court held that the minimum wages for skilled workers prevailing in Gujarat on 27 June 2010—₹4,210 per month—ought to be taken into account.

The Court further applied the requirement that compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act must be just, fair and adequate, and must appropriately reflect the claimant’s physical disability, pain, suffering and treatment-related expenses.

The Court found that the Tribunal had adopted an unduly conservative approach by failing to consider the applicable minimum wages for skilled workers and by using a lower notional income for calculating compensation.

Since the claimant was engaged in repairing trucks and the applicable minimum wage on the date of the accident was ₹4,210 per month, the Tribunal’s income assessment was considered inadequate.

The Court also held that the claimant’s fracture injuries and two surgeries justified a higher award for pain, shock and suffering than the ₹10,000 granted by the Tribunal.

Similarly, the combined amount of ₹9,000 awarded towards transportation, attendance and special diet was found insufficient.

Taking into account the accepted 12% physical/functional disability, the nature of the injuries and the surgeries undergone, the Court determined that total compensation of ₹1,75,000 would constitute just, fair and adequate compensation.

The total compensation was enhanced from ₹1,26,540 to ₹1,75,000, resulting in additional compensation of ₹48,460, together with interest at 8% per annum and proportionate costs.

Opponent No. 3—the insurance company—was directed to deposit the enhanced amount, with applicable interest and costs, before the concerned Tribunal within eight weeks from 07 September 2026.

The Tribunal was directed to disburse the deposited amount to the claimants in accordance with law.