Gratuitous attendant services for a permanently disabled claimant warrant compensation computed using the multiplier method.

The appellant, aged 29 years, suffered serious injuries in a motor accident on 27 October 2022, resulting in 100% permanent functional disability, paraplegia, loss of bowel and bladder sensation, and inability to walk or attend to his basic needs independently.

He claimed to be working as a pipe fitter/insulator and earning approximately Rs.27,000 per month, although during cross-examination he stated that his income was Rs.24,000 per month and produced no salary or income proof.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal assessed his income on the basis of minimum wages for a skilled worker at Rs.20,357 per month and awarded total compensation of Rs.83,10,835, including only Rs.35,000 towards attendant charges.

The claimant appealed seeking enhancement on the grounds of incorrect assessment of income and inadequate attendant charges.

The Court applied the principle that assessment of income in motor accident claims involves intelligent guesswork and need not be confined to minimum wages where documentary proof is unavailable; the court may consider the overall evidence, nature and location of employment, vocation, and applicable minimum-wage notifications, as stated in Savita & Ors. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2026:DHC:3626.

It relied on Chandramani Nanda v. Sarat Chandra Swain & Ors., 2024 INSC 777, and Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, (2020) 4 SCC 413, for the principle that gratuitous attendant services provided by family members have compensable value and that the tortfeasor cannot benefit from such unpaid assistance.

Under Kajal, attendant charges may be determined through the multiplier method, which promotes consistency and reflects the claimant’s long-term requirements.

The Court also applied the multiplier of 17 for a claimant aged 29 years, consistently with National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680.

On income, the Court rejected both the claimant’s uncorroborated assertion of Rs.27,000 per month and the Tribunal’s mechanical reliance on minimum wages. Although the claimant had previous employment-related documents and had worked in skilled occupations, there was no salary proof or testimony from his contractor, and his own statements regarding income were inconsistent. Applying the flexible benchmark-income approach in Savita, the Court assessed his monthly income at Rs.22,000.

On attendant charges, the Court held that the claimant’s admission that he had not hired nursing assistance did not defeat the claim. Medical evidence established that he was paraplegic, had permanent lower-limb disability, loss of bowel and bladder sensation, no realistic chance of recovery, and would remain unable to walk or manage basic activities independently.

Consequently, family members were presumed to be providing continuing gratuitous assistance, which was compensable under Chandramani Nanda and Kajal. The Court adopted the minimum wage applicable to a semi-skilled worker in Delhi, Rs.17,693 per month, as the cost of one attendant and applied multiplier 17, resulting in attendant charges of Rs.36,09,272.

The enhanced compensation was directed to carry interest at 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition and was to be deposited before the Tribunal within four weeks. Rs.2,00,000 was directed to be released to the claimant, while the balance was to be placed in staggered fixed deposits, with interest credited to his savings account.