In absence of cogent income evidence, courts must assess earnings using applicable minimum wages.

On 16 November 2020, the appellant was riding a motorcycle with two other persons when an Ecco car, allegedly driven rashly and negligently while overtaking another vehicle, collided with the motorcycle.

The appellant sustained multiple grievous injuries, while the two accompanying persons died in the accident.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kheda at Nadiad, partly allowed the claim petition and awarded ₹5,73,913 with interest at 7.5% per annum.

The appellant challenged the award in the present appeal on the ground of inadequacy of compensation, particularly the assessment of income and amounts awarded for pain and suffering, transportation, special diet and attendant charges.

Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the appellant’s monthly income at ₹6,000 in the absence of documentary proof, instead of applying the applicable minimum wages.

Whether the compensation awarded towards future loss of income, actual loss of income, mental pain, shock and suffering, and transportation, special diet and attendant charges required enhancement.

Whether the deduction of 10% towards the appellant’s contributory negligence was liable to be disturbed.

In motor accident compensation claims, where the claimant’s actual income is not established by cogent evidence, the court may assess income on the basis of the prevailing minimum wages, following Govind Yadav v. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 683.

The court applied the established principles for computation of loss of earning capacity by adding future prospects, applying the appropriate multiplier based on age, and multiplying the result by the assessed functional disability.

Compensation must also be reasonable under non-pecuniary and incidental heads, including pain and suffering, transportation, special diet and attendant charges.

The claimant’s established contributory negligence must be deducted proportionately from the total compensation.

The High Court accepted that the appellant was working as a labourer but found that his claimed income of ₹15,000 per month was unsupported by cogent evidence.

Applying the minimum wages notified by the Gujarat Government for a skilled worker at the time of the accident, the Court reassessed the monthly income at ₹9,100.

It added 40% towards future prospects, resulting in a monthly income of ₹12,740, and, since the Tribunal’s assessment of 25% functional disability was not disputed, applied a multiplier of 18 to calculate future loss of income at ₹6,87,960.

The Court recalculated actual loss of income for three months at ₹27,300.

The Court enhanced pain and suffering from ₹15,000 to ₹40,000 considering the multiple fractures, surgery and hospitalization, and increased transportation, special diet and attendant charges from ₹20,000 to ₹30,000.

After retaining the undisputed medical expenses of ₹1,31,081 and deducting 10% for the appellant’s contributory negligence, the total compensation was fixed at ₹8,24,707.

The appellant was held entitled to total compensation of ₹8,24,707, after deduction for 10% contributory negligence, resulting in an additional amount of ₹2,50,794 over and above the ₹5,73,913 already awarded.

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the additional compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization within six weeks.

The Tribunal was directed to disburse the amount after deducting any deficit court fees and completing due verification.