Driver’s income assessment should reflect skilled nature of work despite absence of documentary evidence.

The appellants (original claimants) challenged the judgment and award dated 22.01.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Modasa, in MACP No. 1255 of 2013.

The claim arose from a 2008 motor vehicle accident resulting in the death of a 22-year-old male who worked as a spare truck driver.

The Tribunal had determined the deceased's monthly income at Rs. 3,000/- due to a lack of documentary evidence and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 5,06,000/- with 8% interest.

The claimants appealed for enhancement, arguing that the income assessment was too low for a skilled driver and that conventional heads were not adequately compensated.

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in fixing the notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- despite his vocation as a skilled heavy vehicle driver.

2. Whether the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation under the heads of future prospects and conventional requirements such as loss of consortium and estate.

The court primarily applied Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 regarding appeals against awards.

Minu Rout v. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra (2013) 10 SCC 695, which establishes that driving heavy motor vehicles is a skilled job and warrants a higher notional income (Rs. 6,000/-) even without documentary proof.

The principles for multiplier (18) and personal expense deductions (50% for an unmarried deceased) were drawn from Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corp. (2009) 6 SCC 121.

For future prospects (40% addition) and the 10% rise in conventional heads, the court applied National Insurance Co. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680.

Parental consortium was determined based on Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd v. Nanu Ram (2018) 18 SCC 130.

The court held that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the vocation of a truck driver requires specialized skill.

Following Minu Rout, the court took judicial notice of the nature of the job and redetermined the monthly income at Rs. 6,000/-, noting the accident occurred in 2008.

Regarding future prospects, the court applied a 40% increase to the monthly income (totaling Rs. 8,400/-) as the deceased was below 40 years of age and on a fixed salary.

A 50% deduction for personal expenses was maintained as the deceased was unmarried.

Applying a multiplier of 18, the dependency loss was calculated at Rs. 9,07,200/-.

The court corrected the Tribunal’s omission regarding conventional heads by awarding parental consortium for both parents (Rs. 96,800), funeral expenses (Rs. 18,150), and loss of estate (Rs. 18,150), incorporating the mandatory 10% rise every three years as per Pranay Sethi.

The court held that the original claimants are entitled to the enhanced amount with interest at 8% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realization.

The Insurance Company (Respondent No. 3) was directed to deposit the additional sum of Rs. 5,34,300/- with the Tribunal within six weeks.