Mandatory reference to minimum wages for skilled workers when determining motor accident compensation for minors.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Tribunal is bound by the income pleaded in the claim petition if it is lower than the prevalent minimum wages.

The court held

The Court partly allowed the appeal, holding that the claimants are entitled to "just compensation" based on minimum wages despite lower pleadings.

It also directed

The total compensation was enhanced from Rs. 8,29,000/- to Rs. 13,53,052/-. The respondent-Insurance Company was directed to deposit the additional amount of Rs. 5,24,052/- with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of the claim petition until realization.

01Facts

On December 28, 2017, the deceased, Arunbhai Rajubhai Vasava (a 17-year-old minor), was a pillion rider on a motorcycle that was struck by a tractor driven at excessive speed.

¶ 2

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Vadodara, awarded Rs. 8,29,000/- based on a monthly income of Rs. 5,000/-, as pleaded by the claimants.

¶ 1, 5

The appellants/claimants preferred this appeal seeking enhancement, arguing that the income should be based on minimum wages rather than their lower pleadings.

¶ 4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Tribunal is bound by the income pleaded in the claim petition if it is lower than the prevalent minimum wages.

¶ 6, 8

ii.2. Whether the compensation awarded under conventional heads (loss of estate, funeral expenses, and consortium) was adequate based on established precedents.

¶ 4.1, 13, 14

03Law Applied

A Tribunal must award "just compensation" regardless of the specific claims made in the application, as established in Rajesh and Ors. v. Rajbir Singh and Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 54.

¶ 6, 8

Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari (2025) AIJEL-SC 75833, which mandates using minimum wages for skilled workers to calculate loss of income for children/minors.

¶ 9

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 (future prospects and fixed heads) and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram (2018) 18 SCC 130 (parental consortium).

¶ 4.1, 12-14

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166

04Reasoning

The High Court held that the Tribunal erred in restricting the deceased’s income to Rs. 5,000/- per month. Referencing Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel, the Court observed that for accidents involving minors, income must be calculated based on the minimum wage for skilled workers at the time of the accident, which was Rs. 8,388/- in December 2017.

¶ 9-11

The Court added 40% for future prospects and deducted 1/2 for personal expenses as the deceased was an unmarried minor, resulting in a dependency loss of Rs. 12,68,352/-.

¶ 12

The Court found the Tribunal’s awards for conventional heads "meagre" and adjusted them upward to match the inflation-adjusted rates prescribed in Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance.

¶ 13-15