Minimum wages must be the basis for assessing notional income when actual earnings remain unproven.

The appellant (original claimant) challenged the judgment and award dated 30.05.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Kheda at Nadiad in MACP No. 1106/2001

On 29.12.2000, the appellant, then aged 60 and engaged in agricultural work, sustained an accident resulting in three fractures in his leg, necessitating three surgical operations

The Tribunal assessed his functional disability at 20% (not challenged) and calculated compensation based on a notional income of ₹1,800 per month, totaling ₹1,13,700 with 7.5% interest

The appellant sought enhancement of the quantum, arguing that his income should have been based on the prevailing minimum wages and that the non-pecuniary damages were meager

During the pendency of the appeal, the original appellant expired

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the notional income of the claimant at ₹1,800 per month instead of the minimum wages notified by the State Government

2. Whether the compensation awarded under the heads of pain, shock and suffering, special diet, attendant charges, and actual loss of income required enhancement to be "just"

The Court applied the principle of determining "just compensation" under the Motor Vehicles Act, emphasizing that in the absence of cogent evidence of exact income, the Court must rely on the minimum wages notified by the State Government at the time of the accident

It utilized the multiplier method for calculating future loss of income, applying a multiplier of 9 for a 60-year-old claimant

The Court found that while the claimant's asserted income of ₹10,000 could not be proved, the Tribunal's assessment of ₹1,800 was lower than the minimum wage of ₹2,100 per month for skilled workers notified by the Government of Gujarat at the time of the accident (December 2000)

Consequently, the Court reassessed future loss of income at ₹45,360 (₹2,100 x 20% x 12 x 9)

Regarding non-pecuniary damages, the Court observed that ₹15,000 for pain, shock, and suffering was inadequate given the severity of three fractures and three surgeries; this was enhanced to ₹25,000

Similarly, the Court increased the award for special diet, attendant charges, and transportation from ₹5,000 to ₹15,000, and adjusted the actual loss of income to ₹10,500 based on the revised minimum wage for a five-month recovery period

The respondents were directed to deposit an additional amount of ₹48,860 with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of the claim petition

The Court further directed that since the original claimant had expired, his legal representatives must file an appropriate application before the Tribunal for the disbursement of the awarded amount