Future loss of income must be assessed using applicable minimum wages and the claimant’s disability percentage.

The claimant appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kheda at Nadiad’s award dated 30 May 2014 in MACP No. 141 of 2013.

The Tribunal had awarded ₹1,12,500. The accident facts and the owner’s and insurers’ liability were not disputed in the appeal; the claimant challenged the adequacy of compensation, including the assessment of income, disability-related future loss, and other heads of damages.

The Tribunal’s allocation of liability—75% to The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and 25% to The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.—was also before the Court.

1. Whether the Tribunal’s award inadequately assessed the claimant’s compensation, warranting enhancement.

2. Whether the Tribunal’s apportionment of liability between the two insurers should be disturbed.

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, provides for an appeal against a Tribunal’s award.

The Act is beneficial legislation, and compensation must be just, fair, reasonable, and based on a realistic assessment of the loss; the Tribunal must endeavour to award just compensation.

The Court relied on Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 871] in accepting the applicable minimum wage as the claimant’s monthly income for calculating compensation.

The Court concluded that the Tribunal had erred in assessing compensation. It adopted ₹7,140 as the claimant’s monthly income, applied the assessed 16% disability and multiplier of 18 to calculate future loss of income, and added amounts for medical expenses, pain, shock and suffering, and special diet.

This produced total compensation of ₹3,50,062; after deducting the ₹1,12,500 already awarded, the Court determined that a further ₹2,37,562 was payable.

Since the allocation of liability between the insurers was not shown to require alteration, the Court maintained the 75:25 apportionment.

The insurers were directed to deposit their respective shares within eight weeks; the Tribunal was directed to disburse the amount in accordance with the judgment, subject to applicable court fees. The remaining directions of the Tribunal’s award were maintained.