Future income of minor claimants must be assessed based on minimum wages with future prospects added.

On August 3, 2011, the appellant, a 12-year-old student, was traveling in a school bus (GJ-11-W-387) driven by respondent No. 1. Due to rash and negligent driving, the bus fell into a pit and turned turtle, causing grievous injuries to the appellant

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Junagadh, awarded a total compensation of Rs. 32,500 with 9% interest in MACP No. 283/2011

Dissatisfied with the quantum, the claimant appealed, arguing that the Tribunal erred in assessing a minor's income at only Rs. 15,000 per annum and failed to consider future prospects or adequate non-pecuniary damages

1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was just and adequate, specifically regarding the assessment of a minor's notional income and future prospects

2. Whether the amounts awarded under non-pecuniary heads like pain, shock, and suffering were sufficient given the nature of injuries and functional disability

The Court applied the principles of motor accident compensation law, emphasizing the use of minimum wages for notional income assessment in the absence of cogent evidence of earnings

It relied on the formula for future prospects (adding 40% for claimants aged below 40) and the multiplier method as per the claimant’s age (multiplier of 18 for a 12-year-old)

The court also upheld the principle that compensation for pain, suffering, and amenities must be commensurate with the percentage of functional disability (10% in this case) and the duration of hospitalization

The High Court found the Tribunal’s assessment of Rs. 15,000 per annum (approx. Rs. 1,250 per month) for a minor to be erroneously low. The Court noted that the accident occurred in 2011, where the minimum wage for a skilled worker in Gujarat was Rs. 4,660 per month; consequently, the Court rounded this to a notional income of Rs. 5,000 per month

To this, the Court added 40% for future prospects (totaling Rs. 7,000) and applied a multiplier of 18 against the 10% functional disability, resulting in a future loss of income totaling Rs. 1,51,200

The Court determined that the consolidated award of Rs. 10,000 for pain, suffering, medical, and transportation was "meagre" and enhanced it to Rs. 30,000 to better reflect the claimant's physical and mental trauma

The respondent Insurance Company was directed to deposit the additional amount of Rs. 1,48,700 with 9% interest per annum from the date of the claim petition until realization within six weeks. The Court ordered the Tribunal to disburse the amount to the claimant after verifying court fees