In the absence of cogent income evidence, minimum wages for skilled workers must determine compensation.

On December 21, 2018, the deceased (Nareshkumar), aged 33, was traveling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle when an S.T. bus owned by the appellant Corporation dashed into the motorcycle from the opposite direction

The deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed after 15 days of treatment

The claimants (parents) filed M.A.C.P. No. 51 of 2019 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Sabarkantha, which awarded Rs. 11,89,300/- with 9% interest, holding the bus driver solely negligent

The Corporation appealed challenging the finding of negligence, while the claimants filed cross-objections seeking enhancement of the quantum

1. Whether the driver of the S.T. bus was solely negligent or if there was contributory negligence by the rider of the motorcycle

2. Whether the income assessed by the Tribunal and the non-awarding of compensation for "Pain, Shock, and Suffering" required enhancement/modification

The Court applied the principles of negligence under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, relying on criminal investigation records (FIR, Panchnama, and Charge-sheet) to determine liability

For quantum, it followed National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017), which mandates a 40% addition for future prospects for a deceased aged below 40 and 1/2 deduction for personal expenses for a bachelor

It also utilized the State’s Minimum Wages schedule to determine notional income in the absence of documentary evidence

Regarding negligence, the Court rejected the Corporation’s plea for contributory negligence, noting that the police filed a charge-sheet solely against the bus driver, which remained unchallenged

Regarding quantum, the Court found the Tribunal’s assessment of monthly income at Rs. 7,000/- too low. Since the deceased was a skilled painter/agriculturist, the Court applied the Gujarat State minimum wage for skilled workers (Rs. 8,560/-)

Following Pranay Sethi, the Court added 40% for future prospects (Rs. 11,984/-), deducted 50% for his bachelor status (Rs. 5,992/-), and applied a multiplier of 16 based on his age (33 years)

Additionally, the Court found the Tribunal erred by not awarding compensation for "Pain, Shock, and Suffering" despite the deceased surviving for 15 days post-accident, and thus awarded Rs. 20,000/- under this head

The total compensation was enhanced from Rs. 11,89,300/- to Rs. 14,18,964/-, resulting in an additional award of Rs. 2,29,664/- with 9% interest per annum. The Corporation was directed to deposit the additional amount within six weeks