In the absence of income evidence, compensation must be computed using applicable minimum wages.

On 12 April 2016, Kanaiyalal alias Kanjibhai Lakshmanbhai was riding a bicycle near Sambhavnath Petrol Pump on the Rajkot–Ahmedabad Highway when a truck-trailer, allegedly driven rashly and at excessive speed by respondent No.1, overturned and dashed against him. He sustained fatal injuries and died.

His widow and two other legal heirs claimed compensation of ₹20,00,000, asserting that the deceased was 45 years old, worked as a mason earning ₹15,000 per month, and also derived agricultural income of ₹1,00,000 annually.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal partly allowed the claim and awarded ₹5,60,000 with interest at 9% per annum, jointly and severally against the concerned respondents.

The claimants appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement of compensation.

1. Whether, in the absence of documentary proof of the deceased’s actual earnings, his income should be assessed on the basis of the applicable minimum wages for a skilled worker rather than ₹3,500 per month adopted by the Tribunal?

2. Whether the claimants were entitled to an additional amount for supervisory loss or income from the deceased’s agricultural land?

3. Whether the compensation under future prospects, loss of consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses required enhancement in accordance with settled legal principles?

The appeal was governed by Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, concerning appeals against awards of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

Applying Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 871, the Court held that where income is not proved by evidence, applicable minimum wages may be used as the yardstick for determining the deceased’s income.

Under Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, a multiplier of 14 applies to a deceased aged 45 years, and 25% is added towards future prospects.

Under United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780, eligible family members may receive individual compensation for spousal, parental, and filial consortium.

The Court also applied the requirement that claimed pecuniary losses must be supported by evidence before compensation can be awarded.

The Court found no evidence substantiating the claimed monthly income of ₹15,000 from masonry work and held that the Tribunal had erred in adopting ₹3,500 per month without considering minimum wages.

Since the accident occurred on 12 April 2016, the applicable State notification prescribing minimum wages for skilled workers from 1 April 2016 to 30 September 2016 was applied, resulting in a monthly income of ₹9,384.

Adding 25% for future prospects, deducting one-third towards personal expenses, and applying the multiplier of 14, the Court assessed future loss of income at ₹13,13,760.

Although revenue records showed joint holdings in agricultural land, the claimants produced no evidence proving any actual supervisory loss or income attributable to the deceased’s death; that claim was therefore rejected.

The widow, two children, and the deceased’s mother were each held entitled to ₹48,400 towards spousal, parental, or filial consortium, as applicable.

The Court further awarded ₹18,150 each for loss of estate and funeral expenses.

The Court enhanced the total compensation to ₹15,43,660, comprising ₹13,13,760 for future loss of income, ₹1,93,600 for loss of consortium, ₹18,150 for loss of estate, and ₹18,150 for funeral expenses.

After deducting the Tribunal’s award of ₹5,60,000, the claimants were granted an enhanced amount of ₹9,83,660 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realization.

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the enhanced amount with accrued interest within 12 weeks, after which the Tribunal was directed to disburse the awarded amount to the entitled parties.

The Tribunal’s judgment and award dated 22 November 2019 were modified accordingly.