Determination of compensation must include documented professional salary and supervisory income from agricultural/business assets.

On May 23, 2014, the deceased, Ramjanbhai Rustambhai, was helping move a broken-down Tavera vehicle on the Multi-Surendranagar road when he was hit by a rashly driven dumper.

The claimants (widow, two children, and parents) filed MACP No. 15/2015.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Surendranagar, awarded Rs. 14,30,800/- with 9% interest on March 17, 2023, basing the deceased's income on minimum wages.

The claimants appealed to the High Court seeking enhancement of compensation, contending that the Tribunal ignored documentary evidence of a higher salary and failed to apply the correct multiplier.

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the deceased's income based on minimum wages despite documentary evidence of higher earnings.

2. Whether the appropriate multiplier should be 15 instead of 14, given the deceased’s age was approximately 40 years and 4 months.

3. Whether the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation under conventional heads and loss of consortium.

The Court applied the principles of determining "just compensation" under the Motor Vehicles Act.

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) regarding future prospects and conventional heads.

Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram (2018) regarding the entitlement of all legal representatives to parental, spousal, and filial consortium.

Shashikala & Ors. v. Gangalakshmamma and Anr. (2015), which dictates the multiplier based on specific age brackets.

Union of India v. T. R. Varma (1957) to affirm that Tribunals are not bound by the strict rigors of the Evidence Act.

The Court found that the Tribunal incorrectly ignored Exh. 46 (salary certificate of Rs. 15,300/-) and evidence of agricultural and auto-rickshaw income.

The Court held that while the Tribunal noted the author of the income document wasn't examined, the document was admitted via a court order (Exh. 35) which the insurance company never challenged.

The Court reassessed the total monthly income at Rs. 17,000/- to account for both salary and supervisory loss from other sources.

Since the deceased was 40 years and 4 months old, the Court corrected the multiplier from 14 to 15, as the age fell within the 40-45 bracket per Shashikala.

The Court analyzed that with five dependents, 1/4th of the income should be deducted for personal expenses, and 25% added for future prospects.

The claimants are entitled to an additional sum of Rs. 17,16,340/- with 9% interest from the date of the claim petition.

Respondent No. 6 (Insurance Company) was directed to deposit the additional amount within six weeks.