Minimum Wages and Future Prospects Must Be Included for Just Compensation to Unskilled Motor Accident Claimants

On December 27, 2016, the appellant-claimant was parked on his motorcycle at the Vejalpur Bus Stand when a Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (GSRTC) bus (No. GJ-18-Z-1683) struck him due to rash and negligent driving

The appellant sustained grievous injuries resulting in 11% permanent disability to the body as a whole

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Godhara, awarded a total compensation of ₹76,520/- in MACP No. 31 of 2019

The appellant moved the High Court seeking enhancement, contending that the Tribunal failed to consider future prospective income and undervalued his monthly earnings

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the claimant at ₹4,000/- instead of following the prevailing minimum wages for the year 2016

2. Whether the claimant is entitled to an addition for "future prospective income" despite being 60 years of age at the time of the accident

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

It followed the multiplier and disability assessment standards established in *Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation* (2009)

Additionally, the court applied the doctrine of "future prospects" to ensure "just compensation" under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

The Court found that the Tribunal’s assessment of ₹4,000/- per month was unsustainable given that the government-approved minimum wage for an unskilled person in 2016 was ₹7,700/-

Regarding future prospects, the Court determined that an addition of 10% was requisite, bringing the monthly income to ₹8,470/-

Applying the established 11% disability rate (agreed upon by consent pursis at Exh:21) and the correct multiplier of 9 for a 60-year-old victim, the Court recalculated the future loss of income to be ₹1,00,624/- (₹8,470 x 12 x 9 x 11%)

The Court maintained the Tribunal’s awards for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and diet/attendant charges as being just and proper

It held that the appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation totaling ₹1,29,624/-, resulting in an additional award of ₹53,104/- over the Tribunal's original award

The GSRTC (Respondent No. 2) was directed to deposit the additional amount with interest within four weeks

The Tribunal was further ordered to deduct deficit court fees on the enhanced amount before disbursing the funds via RTGS/NEFT