Minimum wage for skilled labor must be used to assess income absent documentary proof.

On September 25, 2019, the claimant (appellant in Cross-Objection) was a pillion rider on a motorcycle that was struck by an ST Bus belonging to the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (GSRTC) due to the driver's rash and negligent driving.

The claimant sustained serious injuries and sought compensation of Rs. 7 lahks.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Mahisagar at Lunawada, awarded Rs. 2,88,320/- with 7% interest via judgment dated July 8, 2022.

GSRTC filed a First Appeal challenging the total award, while the claimant filed Cross-Objections seeking enhancement of the compensation on the grounds of undervalued income and future prospects.

1. Whether the First Appeal filed by the Insurance Company/GSRTC against the compensation of Rs. 2,88,320/- is maintainable given the smallness of the amount.

2. Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the claimant's monthly income at Rs. 6,500/- and failing to account for future prospective income and minimum wages.

The Court applied Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, regarding appeals against awards.

It relied on the precedent set in Govind Yadav v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2012), which mandates that in the absence of specific proof of income, the Tribunal must consider prevalent minimum wages.

Furthermore, for the assessment of future physical disability and income loss, the Court applied the "multiplier method" and "future prospects" guidelines from National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) (40% addition for future prospects) and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) (standardization of multipliers based on age).

Regarding the GSRTC appeal, the Court declined to interfere with the award due to the "smallness of the amount" involved (Rs. 2,88,320/-), dismissing it without expressing an opinion on the merits of law to avoid res judicata in related proceedings.

Regarding the Cross-Objection, the Court found the Tribunal's assessment of Rs. 6,500/- monthly income flawed as it was below the government-approved minimum wage for skilled persons (Rs. 8,278/-) at the time of the 2019 accident; thus, the Court reassessed income at Rs. 8,300/-.

Applying Pranay Sethi, the Court added 40% for future prospects (totaling Rs. 11,620/- income) and applied a multiplier of 18 as the claimant was 18 years old.

With an agreed 8% body-as-a-whole disability, the future loss of income was recalculated to Rs. 2,00,880/-, necessitating an enhancement of the original award.

The Cross-Objection No. 133 of 2024 was partly allowed, enhancing the total compensation from Rs. 2,88,320/- to Rs. 3,80,480/-.

The GSRTC was ordered to deposit the additional amount of Rs. 92,160/- with proportionate interest within four weeks.

The Tribunal was further directed to deduct deficit court fees from the enhanced amount before disbursement to the claimant.