In absence of income proof, compensation must be assessed using prevailing minimum wages for skilled workers.

The original claimant, aged approximately 72 years, was crossing the road on his Luna when he was hit from behind by a car.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Kheda at Nadiad, held the claimant 50% negligent and awarded total compensation of ₹2,32,310 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.

The Tribunal also directed that 50% of the compensation be recovered from the tortfeasor who had not been impleaded.

Liability of Opponent No. 3–insurance company and the underlying factual findings were not disputed before the High Court.

The claimant appealed seeking enhancement, particularly on the basis that the Tribunal had assessed his monthly income at ₹2,000 instead of applying the minimum wages for a skilled worker and had awarded inadequate amounts under the conventional and medical heads.

Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the claimant’s monthly income at ₹2,000 instead of applying the minimum wages payable to a skilled worker in Gujarat at the time of the accident.

Whether, in view of the claimant’s age, contributory negligence, and the amounts awarded under various heads, the total compensation required enhancement.

Whether the enhanced compensation should be made payable by the insurer subject to recovery of 50% from the non-impleaded tortfeasor.

The Court applied the principles governing just, fair, and adequate compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, including the requirement to assess income on a reasonable and legally supported basis where direct proof is absent.

Relying on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680, the Court held that the Tribunal ought to have considered the minimum wages applicable to a skilled worker in Gujarat at the relevant time.

The Court also preserved the finding of 50% contributory negligence and the principle that the insurer could be directed to satisfy the award, with the corresponding 50% amount recoverable from the tortfeasor who was not joined before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal had assessed the claimant’s monthly income at ₹2,000 without considering the applicable minimum wages for a skilled worker.

The High Court found that, on 25 June 2006, the relevant monthly minimum wage was ₹2,500 and substituted that figure for the purpose of assessing compensation.

Although the claimant was 72 years old and was rightly treated as 50% negligent, the Court considered the revised income and the inadequacy of the compensation awarded under the relevant heads.

Balancing these factors, it determined that total compensation of ₹3,00,000 would be just and adequate.

The existing apportionment and liability arrangement was maintained.

The total compensation was enhanced from ₹2,32,310 to ₹3,00,000, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization.

Opponent No. 3–insurance company was directed to deposit the enhanced amount of ₹67,690, rounded to ₹68,000, with applicable interest within eight weeks.

The insurer and other opponents remained jointly and severally liable, subject to recovery of 50% of the compensation from the non-impleaded tortfeasor.

The Tribunal was directed to disburse the deposited amount to the claimants after due verification.