Minimum wage applies for income assessment of agricultural workers in the absence of documentary evidence.

On March 27, 2019, the deceased, Ramanbhai Vasava (63 years old), was cycling to a milk bank when a car (Reg. No. GJ-19-AF-9654) driven at high speed first struck an electric pole and then hit the deceased from behind.

The deceased succumbed to his injuries.

The legal heirs filed a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Tapi at Vyara, awarded Rs. 2,38,000/- with 7% interest.

The appellants challenged this award before the High Court specifically on the ground of quantum, seeking an enhancement based on higher monthly income and future prospective income.

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at only Rs. 3,000/- in the absence of documentary evidence of agriculture and animal husbandry income.

2. Whether the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation under conventional heads and loss of consortium as per prevailing Supreme Court precedents.

The court applied the principle from *Govind Yadav v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.* (2012), which mandates that in the absence of specific income proof, the Tribunal must consider prevalent minimum wages.

Regarding structural calculations for dependency, the court followed *Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation* (2009) for the multiplier (7) and personal expense deductions (1/3rd).

For conventional heads (Loss of Estate and Funeral Expenses), the court applied *National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi* (2017).

For "Loss of Consortium," it relied on *Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram* (2018) and *Janabai v. M/s ICICI Lombard Insurance Co. Ltd.* (2022).

The High Court found the Tribunal’s assessment of Rs. 3,000/- monthly income to be erroneously low.

Given the accident occurred in 2019, the court reassessed the income based on minimum wages at Rs. 8,200/- per month.

While the Court upheld the refusal to grant "future prospective income" due to the deceased's age (63), it applied a multiplier of 7 and a 1/3rd deduction for personal expenses as per *Sarla Verma*.

The court further determined that the conventional heads for "Loss of Estate" and "Funeral Expenses" required an upward adjustment to Rs. 18,150/- each to account for inflation/standardization.

Finally, the court applied the *Magma General* and *Janabai* standards to award "Spousal/Parental Consortium" to the two claimants at Rs. 40,000/- each plus a 10% increment (totaling Rs. 96,800/-).

The appellants are entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 3,54,328/- with proportionate costs and interest as originally awarded.

The Court directed Respondent No. 3 (Insurance Company) to deposit the additional sum within four weeks and instructed the Tribunal to record deficit court fees on the enhanced amount.