Judicial notice of skilled vocations justifies assessing income above minimum wages despite lacking documentary evidence.

On November 22, 2012, the deceased (Faujdar), aged approximately 40 years, was cycling on Loni Road when he was hit by a truck (Registration No. UP-13T-1900) driven rashly and negligently, resulting in fatal injuries

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded Rs. 21,38,824 with 9% interest per annum

Both the Insurance Company and the claimants filed cross-appeals: the former seeking reduction based on the multiplier and future prospects, and the latter seeking enhancement of monthly income and consortium

1. Whether the correct multiplier was applied based on the age of the deceased at the time of the accident.

2. Whether the assessment of monthly income and the percentage of future prospects were consistent with established legal principles.

3. Whether the compensation under conventional heads, including loss of consortium and care/guidance, required modification.

The Court primarily relied on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) to standardize the multiplier, future prospects (25% for those aged 40-50 on fixed salary/self-employed), and conventional heads (Rs. 15,000 for Estate/Funeral; Rs. 40,000 for Consortium)

It further applied Minu Rout v. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra (2013) to recognize driving as a skilled job for income assessment

Chandra v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav (2022), which held that in the absence of documentary evidence, courts must perform realistic guesswork rather than defaulting to the lowest tier of minimum wages

Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram (2018) was applied to grant consortium to all seven claimants

The Court found that the deceased was 40 years and 7 months old at the time of the accident based on his driving license, justifying a multiplier of 15 under Sarla Verma

Regarding income, while the MACT used minimum wages (Rs. 8,814), the Court noted the unrebutted testimony of the deceased’s wife and his status as a skilled driver to assess a monthly income of Rs. 10,000

Since the deceased fell into the 40-50 age bracket and was not in a permanent job, the Court reduced future prospects from 50% (awarded by MACT) to 25% per the Pranay Sethi mandate

For non-pecuniary damages, the Court increased the loss of consortium to Rs. 2,80,000 (Rs. 40,000 for each of the seven claimants) but deleted the Rs. 1,00,000 awarded for "care and guidance of minor children," as it is not a recognized legal head under Pranay Sethi

It held that the monthly income should be Rs. 10,000 with 25% future prospects and a multiplier of 15

The interest rate of 9% per annum remained unchanged

The Court directed that any excess amount deposited by the Insurance Company be refunded, while the balance of the revised amount be released to the claimants as per the original award's distribution directions