Minimum wages for skilled workers must be considered when assessing the income of a student claimant.

On July 6, 2020, the appellant, a 20-year-old student, was traveling in a Jeep when an I-20 car, driven rashly and at excessive speed, crossed a road divider and collided with her vehicle

The appellant sustained grievous injuries resulting in permanent functional disability

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Banaskantha, awarded a sum of Rs. 3,07,300/- with 7.5% interest

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimant appealed, asserting that the Tribunal failed to consider her potential income as a student and neglected to award future prospects

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of a student claimant without considering minimum wages for skilled workers

2. Whether the claimant is entitled to an addition for "future prospects" in the calculation of compensation for permanent disability

3. Whether the compensation awarded under the heads of pain and suffering, actual loss of income, and miscellaneous charges was adequate

It relied on Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari (2025) to justify using Victorian-era minimum wages for skilled workers when assessing a student's income

For the addition of future prospects, the Court followed National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) and Sidram v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2023), which mandate a 40% addition to the income for victims aged below 40 years

The multiplier of 18 was applied as per the age of the claimant

The Court found the Tribunal’s assessment of Rs. 8,000/- per month to be insufficient. Since the claimant was a student, the Court re-assessed her income at Rs. 9,000/- per month, aligning it with the minimum wage for skilled workers at the time of the accident

Applying the law in Pranay Sethi, the Court added 40% for future prospects (totaling Rs. 12,600/-) and applied a multiplier of 18 against the 10% functional disability, resulting in a future loss of income of Rs. 2,72,160/-

Furthermore, the Court determined that the actual loss of income should cover a recovery period of three months

The awards for "Pain, Shock, and Suffering" and "Special Diet/Attendant Charges" were found to be meager and were enhanced to reflect the severity of injuries and the period of treatment

The respondent Insurance Company was ordered to deposit the additional amount of Rs. 1,30,360/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realization within six weeks

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