Minimum wages and future prospects must be considered when assessing compensation for self-employed accident victims.

On December 6, 2016, the appellant-claimant was hit by a motorcycle (Reg. No. GJ-17-AG-0994) driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent no. 1, resulting in serious injuries

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Panchmahals at Godhra, in MACP No. 63/2019, awarded Rs. 2,76,480/- with 9% interest

The appellant challenged this award on the ground of quantum, arguing that the Tribunal erred in assessing his monthly income at Rs. 7,000/- and failed to account for future prospects despite his age of 27 years

1. Whether the learned Tribunal erred in assessing the notional income of the claimant without considering the prevailing minimum wages for skilled workers

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

The Court applied the principles of just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, specifically focusing on the assessment of income based on minimum wage notifications by the Government of Gujarat for the relevant period (2016)

It further applied the law established regarding future prospects, mandating a 40% addition for victims aged below 40 years, and the standard multiplier system (multiplier of 17 for age 27) as per established precedents

The Court observed that although the claimant’s specific income from agriculture and centering work was not proved by cogent evidence, the Tribunal’s assessment of Rs. 7,000/- was below the statutory minimum wage

At the time of the accident (December 2016), the minimum wage for a skilled worker in Gujarat was Rs. 8,159/- per month, which the Court rounded to Rs. 8,200/-

Following established legal principles, the Court added 40% (Rs. 3,280/-) for future prospects, bringing the monthly income to Rs. 11,480/-

Applying the undisputed 16% functional disability and a multiplier of 17, the Court recalculated the future loss of income at Rs. 3,74,707/-

Other heads of compensation remained undisturbed as they were not challenged

This resulted in an enhancement of Rs. 1,46,227/- over the original award

The Court directed the respondent No. 2 (Insurance Company) to deposit the additional amount with 9% interest from the date of the claim petition within six weeks

The Tribunal was directed to disburse the amount to the appellant after verifying court fees