Income of injured student claimants must be assessed using minimum wages for skilled workers.

On 25 November 2020, the minor claimant, aged approximately 17 years and 5 months, was riding a motorcycle from Rajkot to Gondal with a pillion rider.

Near the Shapar–Veraval bridge, the driver of car No. GJ-03-BW-9011 suddenly opened the driver-side door, resulting in a collision and injuries to the claimant.

The claimant sustained a fracture of the right tibia and fibula, underwent three surgical procedures, suffered shortening of the leg by 1.75 cm, and was left walking with a limp.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation with interest at 9% per annum.

Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the claimant preferred the present appeal.

The appeal was confined to enhancement of compensation.

Whether the income of the minor claimant, who was a student and had no actual income, should be assessed on the basis of the minimum wages prescribed for a skilled worker prevailing on the date of the accident.

Whether 40% should be added towards future prospects and the multiplier of 18 should be applied considering the claimant’s age.

Whether the compensation awarded for permanent disability, pain and suffering, attendant charges, special diet, transportation, and other heads was just and adequate.

The Court applied the principles governing just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, including assessment of loss of future income on the basis of functional disability, appropriate income, future prospects, and the age-related multiplier.

Relying on Hitesh Nagibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari, 2025 INSC 1070, the Court held that the income of a student should be assessed with reference to the minimum wages for a skilled worker prevailing at the time of the accident.

It applied a 40% addition for future prospects and a multiplier of 18 for a claimant aged 17 years and 5 months.

The Court also relied on Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2013 SAR (Civil) 1088 (SC), concerning appropriate compensation for injuries suffered by minors.

Functional disability was assessed at 17% of the whole body, consistent with the position accepted before the Tribunal.

Since the claimant was a student without proven actual earnings, the Court assessed his monthly income at ₹9,079, being the minimum wage for a skilled worker in Gujarat applicable on the date of the accident.

It added 40% for future prospects, resulting in a monthly income of ₹12,711.

Considering the claimant’s age, the Court applied a multiplier of 18 and accepted functional disability at 17% of the whole body, reassessing the future loss of income at approximately ₹4,66,776.

In view of the fracture, repeated surgeries, shortening of the leg, limping, and difficulty in performing routine activities, the Court enhanced compensation for pain, shock and suffering to ₹50,000.

It further awarded ₹50,000 towards special diet, attendant charges, and transportation, while affirming the amounts awarded for medical expenses, parental inconvenience and loss of earnings, and future medical expenses.

The total compensation was consequently reassessed at ₹7,56,376.

The total compensation was enhanced from ₹4,89,600 to ₹7,56,376, resulting in additional compensation of ₹2,66,776.

The additional amount was directed to be deposited by the insurer within six weeks, together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization.

The remaining directions of the Tribunal were maintained, and no order was made as to costs.