Estimation of skilled worker's income must reflect reality, with consortium awarded individually to each legal dependent.

The appeals arise from a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) award dated October 10, 2014, which granted Rs. 21,38,824 with 9% interest to the claimants

On November 22, 2012, the deceased, Sh. Faujdar, was riding a bicycle when he was fatally hit by a rashly driven truck

The Insurance Company sought a reduction in compensation, questioning the multiplier and future prospects

Conversely, the claimants sought an enhancement, arguing that the deceased’s income as a driver should be assessed higher than the minimum wages for a skilled person

Procedurally, 50% of the original award had already been released to the claimants during the pendency of the appeal

1. Whether the correct multiplier was applied based on the deceased's age as per the driving license versus the ration card

2. Whether the deceased’s income should be assessed based on minimum wages or his specific vocation as a skilled driver

3. Whether the future prospects and conventional heads (consortium, funeral expenses, loss of estate) were awarded in accordance with established precedents

The Court applied the multiplier standards established in Sarla Verma v. DTC and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, noting that for the age bracket of 40–50 years, a multiplier of 15 and future prospects of 25% for self-employed/fixed-salary individuals are applicable

Regarding income assessment, the Court relied on Minu Rout v. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra, which classifies driving as a "skilled job"

and Chandra v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav, which permits judicial "guesswork" to determine income in the absence of documentary evidence to avoid defaulting to the lowest tier of minimum wages

For conventional heads, the Court followed the fixed sums (adjusted periodically) stipulated in Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram regarding parental and filial consortium

The Court reconciled the age discrepancy by prioritizing the driving license (Ex.PW1/2), which placed the deceased at 40 years and 7 months, thus confirming the multiplier of 15 used by the MACT

On the issue of income, the Court observed that the MACT erred in applying simple minimum wages (Rs. 8,814) when evidence (testimony of PW-1 and the driving license) suggested the deceased was a skilled driver

Using the "guesswork" principle from Chandra, the Court increased the monthly income to Rs. 10,000

However, the Court reduced the future prospects from the MACT's assessment to 25% to align with the age-based mandates in Pranay Sethi

Furthermore, the Court reorganized conventional heads: it deleted the non-existent head of "care and guidance for minor children," adjusted funeral and estate expenses to Rs. 15,000 each, and increased the loss of consortium to Rs. 2,80,000 (Rs. 40,000 for each of the seven claimants)

The Court held that while the income was underestimated, the inclusion of non-standard heads like "care and guidance" required correction

The Court directed that the deposited amount be adjusted against this revised sum, with any excess to be refunded to the Insurance Company and the balance released to the claimants as per the original award's directions