Minimum wages must be considered for reassessing notional income in motor accident claims absent specific evidence.

On June 11, 2016, the appellant-claimant sustained grievous injuries and fractures when a Chevrolet Spark car driven by her husband in a rash and negligent manner collided with a rickshaw.

The appellant filed MAC Petition No. 444 of 2017 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Kheda at Nadiad.

The Tribunal partly allowed the claim, awarding ₹4,00,000/- against a claim of ₹7,00,000/-, assessing the appellant’s notional income at ₹5,000/- per month and disability at 25%.

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimant preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the appellant’s income at ₹5,000/- per month instead of considering the prevailing minimum wages and the claimant's alleged profession.

2. Whether the appellant is entitled to enhancement of compensation under the heads of future loss of income and actual loss of income.

The Court applied Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 regarding appeals.

It relied on the precedent set in *Govind Yadav v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.* (2012), which mandates that in the absence of documentary proof of income, the Tribunal must consider prevalent minimum wages.

For the computation of future loss of income, the Court applied the multiplier system established in *Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation* (2009).

Additionally, it considered the principles regarding disability assessment from *D. Sampath v. UII Com. Ltd.* (2011) and *Rudra v. Divisional Manager* (2011).

The High Court found that while the claimant failed to produce evidence of her ₹20,000/- monthly income, the Tribunal’s assessment of ₹5,000/- was lower than the government-approved minimum wage of ₹7,700/- prevailing in June 2016.

The Court upheld the 25% permanent partial disability assessment and the multiplier of 7 (based on the claimant's age of 61).

Applying the corrected income of ₹7,700/-, the Court recalculated the future loss of income as ₹1,61,700 (7,700 x 12 x 7 x 25%) and the actual loss of income for three months as ₹23,100.

The Court determined that no future prospective income additions were required due to the claimant’s age.

Other conventional heads like pain and medical expenses were found to be just and proper.

It enhanced the total compensation from ₹4,00,000/- to ₹4,64,800/-, awarding an additional amount of ₹64,800/- with proportionate costs and interest.

The Court directed respondent No. 3 (Insurance Company) to deposit the additional amount within four weeks and ordered the Tribunal to disburse the funds via RTGS/NEFT after deducting deficit court fees.