In the absence of income evidence, compensation must be based on prevailing skilled-worker minimum wages.

On 31 August 2011, the deceased, Jayeshbhai Arjunsinh Gohel, aged approximately 23 years, was travelling in a Tata Max vehicle returning from Vadodara after purchasing a Ganpati statue. Near Ravandas Petrol Pump on the Vadodara–Anand Highway, a truck allegedly being driven rashly, negligently, at excessive speed and on the wrong side of the road collided with the Tata Max. Jayeshbhai sustained injuries and was declared dead during treatment at SSG Hospital, Vadodara

His parents filed MACP No. 722 of 2011 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming Rs.10,00,000/- and asserting that the deceased earned Rs.4,500/- per month as an RSPH Associate with a Chartered Accountant. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Anand, awarded Rs.2,42,500/- with interest at 9% per annum and directed opponents Nos.1 to 3 to pay the amount jointly and severally. The claimants filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation

Whether the Tribunal had correctly assessed the deceased’s income in the absence of documentary evidence, or whether the minimum wages applicable to a skilled worker in Gujarat should be adopted?

Whether the claimants were entitled to recalculation of loss of dependency by applying future prospects, the appropriate deduction for personal expenses and the correct multiplier?

Whether the compensation under non-pecuniary heads, including loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses, required enhancement in accordance with settled Supreme Court principles?

The Court applied Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, governing appeals against awards of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, and Section 166, under which the original compensation claim was instituted

In the absence of reliable proof of actual income, the Court relied on Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 871, for adopting the prevailing minimum wages for a skilled worker

It applied a 40% addition for future prospects where the deceased had no permanent source of income, a 50% deduction towards personal and living expenses because the deceased was a bachelor, and the multiplier of 18 for a deceased aged 23 years in accordance with Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121

Compensation under conventional and non-pecuniary heads was assessed in accordance with National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780

The Court found that the Tribunal had adopted an unduly conservative monthly income of Rs.1,250/- and had incorrectly assessed certain other heads of compensation

Since the claimants had not produced documentary evidence proving the deceased’s actual earnings, the Court adopted the Gujarat minimum wage for a skilled worker applicable from 1 April 2011 to 30 September 2011, namely Rs.4,660/- per month, as the base income. It added 40% towards future prospects, resulting in a prospective monthly income of Rs.6,524/-. After deducting 50% for the deceased’s personal expenses, the monthly contribution was fixed at Rs.3,262/-. Applying the multiplier of 18, the loss of future income was calculated at Rs.7,04,592/-

The Court further awarded Rs.96,800/- towards loss of consortium to both parents, Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate and Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses, resulting in total compensation of Rs.8,37,692/-

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the enhanced amount with accrued interest within 12 weeks

Upon deposit, the Tribunal was directed to disburse the entire awarded amount, including any amount lying in fixed deposit or with the Tribunal, to the claimants in equal proportion, subject to verification, applicable procedure and deduction of court fees, if unpaid

The appeal was accordingly allowed in part and the Tribunal’s award was modified