Minimum wages must be considered for assessing notional income in motor accident claims lacking documentary proof.

On January 1, 2016, the deceased (Amrutbhai @ Ganpatbhai) was attending to a stationary Eicher vehicle on the Ahmedabad–Vadodara Express Highway when he was struck by another Eicher vehicle (No. GJ-5-AZ-2987) driven in a rash and negligent manner.

He succumbed to his injuries on January 2, 2016.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Nadiad, awarded compensation of Rs. 5,61,000/- via judgment dated February 15, 2021.

The appellants (original claimants) preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation, contending that the Tribunal underestimated the deceased's monthly income and failed to award proper amounts under conventional heads.

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the notional income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/- per month instead of the prevailing minimum wages.

2. Whether the compensation awarded under conventional heads (consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses) required enhancement to meet the standard of "just compensation".

The court primarily applied the principles for assessing "just compensation" under the Motor Vehicles Act.

It relied on *Govind Yadav v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.* (2012) to establish that in the absence of documentary proof of income, the court must consider prevailing minimum wages.

Regarding the multiplier and future prospects, the court adhered to the standards set in *Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation* (2009) and *National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi* (implicit in the calculation of conventional heads).

It also referenced *Bimla Devi v. H.R.T.C.* and *Parmeshwari Devi v. Amir Chand* regarding the appreciation of evidence in accident claims.

The High Court found that the Tribunal’s assessment of the deceased's income at Rs. 5,000/- was "on the lower side" because the Government-approved minimum wage in 2016 was Rs. 7,450/- per month.

The Court maintained the additions for future prospects (10%) and the deduction for personal expenses (1/3rd) as the deceased was 60 years old with three dependents.

Applying the multiplier of 9, the loss of dependency was recalculated to Rs. 5,90,112/-.

Furthermore, the Court determined that the conventional heads were undervalued; it increased the consortium to Rs. 1,44,600/- (Rs. 48,200 per claimant) and adjusted loss of estate and funeral expenses to Rs. 18,150/- each to align with current judicial standards.

The Court directed the Insurance Company to deposit the additional amount of Rs. 2,10,012/- with interest as originally awarded by the Tribunal within four weeks.

The Tribunal was further directed to deduct any deficit court fees on the enhanced amount prior to disbursement.