In absence of concrete income evidence, compensation must be assessed using applicable minimum wages.

On 31 October 2011, the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider on motorcycle No. GJ-4-R-8872 when a bus allegedly being driven rashly and negligently collided with the motorcycle from behind, causing the deceased’s death and injuries to the motorcycle rider.

The deceased was stated to be 38 years old and earning Rs.25,000 per year from agriculture and Rs.6,000 per month from diamond-polishing work.

The legal representatives filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1843 of 2012 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Limdi.

The Tribunal awarded Rs.6,74,800 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition and fastened liability upon opponent Nos.1, 2, 6 and 7.

Aggrieved by the allegedly inadequate compensation, the claimants preferred the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Whether the Tribunal had correctly assessed the deceased’s income and the compensation payable towards loss of dependency, including future prospects?

Whether the compensation awarded under the heads of loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium required enhancement in accordance with the applicable Supreme Court precedents?

Whether the claimants were entitled to enhanced compensation and, if so, against which respondents and with what interest and directions for payment?

The Court applied Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, governing appeals against awards of the Claims Tribunal.

It reiterated that the Motor Vehicles Act is beneficial legislation and that compensation must be just, fair, reasonable, equitable and assessed liberally rather than parsimoniously.

Relying on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the Court applied the principles governing future prospects and conventional heads of compensation, including loss of estate and funeral expenses.

It relied on United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780, and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130, for awarding consortium to each eligible dependent.

The Court also referred to N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal, (1980) 3 SCC 457, cautioning Tribunals against technicality and inadequacy in motor accident compensation matters.

In the absence of concrete evidence of income, it relied on Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari, 2025 (4) GLH 470, concerning assessment of income with reference to minimum wages.

The Court found that the Tribunal had not properly assessed the deceased’s monthly income and had therefore understated the loss of dependency.

Applying the beneficial and compensatory principles under the Motor Vehicles Act, together with the applicable rules on future income and conventional damages, the Court recalculated the future dependency loss at Rs.10,26,360.

It further determined that the claimants were entitled to Rs.18,150 each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses and Rs.48,400 towards consortium for each of the four dependents, resulting in total compensation of Rs.13,53,060.

After deducting the Tribunal’s award of Rs.6,74,800, the Court determined the enhancement at Rs.6,78,260.

The Court retained the liability arrangement against opponent Nos.1, 2, 6 and 7.

The Court held that the claimants were entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.6,78,260, carrying interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization.

Opponent Nos.1, 2, 6 and 7 were directed to deposit the enhanced amount with interest, jointly and severally, within eight weeks from receipt of the order.

The remaining directions of the Tribunal were maintained, and the Tribunal was directed to disburse the entire awarded amount, after due verification and deduction of court fees, if payable.