In the absence of income evidence, compensation must be assessed using prevailing minimum wages.

The claimant sustained injuries, including fractures of the tibia and fibula, when his motorcycle was struck by a car on 19 January 2019.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khambhat, partly allowed his claim and awarded ₹2,15,600 with 9% annual interest. The claimant appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement, principally contending that the Tribunal had undervalued his income and failed to adequately assess the compensation heads.

Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of the claimant’s income at ₹6,000 per month should be revised by reference to the applicable minimum wages.

Whether the compensation awarded for the claimant’s injuries and resulting losses should be enhanced, including by accounting for future prospects and other heads of damage.

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for an appeal against an award of the Claims Tribunal.

The Act is beneficial legislation, and compensation must be just, fair, reasonable and assessed on a holistic, pragmatic basis; the Tribunal must endeavour to award just compensation.

Relying on Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 871, the Court referred to the principle that, in the absence of concrete evidence of income, minimum wages may be used to determine income; the quoted passage concerned a minor claimant and adopted the minimum wage for a skilled workman.

The Court found that there was no evidence of the claimant’s income and considered the applicable minimum wages in Gujarat at the relevant time to be ₹8,560 per month, rather than the ₹6,000 adopted by the Tribunal.

It also found that future prospects had not been included. Applying the revised income, 15% disability, a multiplier of 17 and 40% future prospects, and allowing amounts for pain and suffering, actual loss of income, diet, attendant and transportation expenses, and medical expenses, the Court calculated total compensation of ₹4,23,402.

The operative direction required the insurer to deposit an enhanced amount of ₹2,07,600 with interest within eight weeks, with disbursement and court-fee directions also issued.

The judgment contains a numerical inconsistency: the calculation in paragraph 10 gives an additional amount of ₹2,07,802 (₹4,23,402 less ₹2,15,600), while paragraphs 11 and 12.2 direct payment of ₹2,07,600.