Minimum Wages and Future Prospects Must Be Considered for Notional Income Assessment in Injury Claims

On January 12, 2020, the appellant was waiting for a bus when he was struck by a Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (GSRTC) bus (GJ-18-Z-1519) driven negligently.

The bus ran over him, causing grievous injuries, including fractures of the left knee and hip, requiring surgery.

The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT), Mahesana, awarded Rs. 1,05,140 with 9% interest via an award dated December 3, 2021.

The appellant challenged this award before the High Court, seeking enhancement on the grounds that the Tribunal assessed his monthly income at a meager Rs. 3,500 and failed to consider future prospects.

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the notional income below the prevailing minimum wages.

2. Whether the claimant is entitled to an addition for future prospects in the calculation of loss of future earning capacity.

3. Whether the compensation under non-pecuniary heads like 'Pain, Shock, and Suffering' was just and adequate.

The court applied the principles of "just compensation" under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680, which mandates adding a percentage for future prospects—specifically 40% for those aged below 40—to the established income.

Sidram v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2022) INSC 1202 regarding future earning capacity.

The court utilized the state-notified minimum wages for skilled workers to determine notional income in the absence of documented proof.

The Court found that the Tribunal’s assessment of Rs. 3,500 per month was erroneously low as it fell below the statutory minimum wages of Rs. 8,720 for skilled workers in Gujarat at the time of the accident.

Applying Pranay Sethi, the Court added 40% for future prospects to this base income, totaling Rs. 12,208 monthly.

With a 12% functional disability and a multiplier of 16 (based on the appellant's age of 33), the future loss of income was recalculated to Rs. 2,81,272.

Regarding non-pecuniary damages, the Court noted the claimant’s prolonged hospitalization and surgical intervention at Ahmedabad Civil Hospital, concluding that the original awards for 'Pain and Suffering' and 'Attendant Charges' were meager and required upward revision to reflect the gravity of the injuries.

The Court directed the respondents to deposit the additional amount of Rs. 2,23,572 with 9% interest per annum from the date of the claim petition until realization.

The Tribunal was ordered to disburse the entire amount to the claimant upon verification.