Minimum wages must determine notional income for skilled workers absent cogent evidence of actual earnings.

On March 8, 2007, the appellant was traveling in a Jeep (Reg. No. GJ-20-A-2886) when it was struck from behind by another Jeep (Reg. No. GJ-20-T-9768) driven negligently by Respondent No. 1

The appellant, aged 22 and working in centering, suffered severe injuries, including a fracture of the right tibia fibula, necessitating two surgeries and prolonged hospitalization

The M.A.C.T. (Main), Dahod, in M.A.C.P. No. 578 of 2007, awarded a total compensation of ₹2,50,000 with 7.50% interest

Dissatisfied with the quantum—specifically the assessment of monthly income at ₹2,000 and the lack of future prospects—the appellant moved the High Court for enhancement

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the appellant's monthly income at ₹2,000 instead of following the prevailing minimum wage standards

2. Whether the appellant is entitled to an addition for future prospects and enhanced compensation under non-pecuniary heads

The court applied the Motor Vehicles Act principles for "just compensation," specifically utilizing the "Minimum Wages" notification by the Government of Gujarat for skilled workers to determine notional income in the absence of documentary evidence

It further relied on the landmark precedents of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi Others (AIR 2017 SC 5157) regarding the addition of 40% for future prospects for claimants below 40 years

Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation regarding the appropriate multiplier (18 for age 22)

The High Court found the Tribunal's assessment of ₹2,000 monthly income too low. It noted that at the time of the accident (2007), the minimum wage for a skilled worker in Gujarat was ₹2,600, which the Court adopted

Following Pranay Sethi, the Court added 40% for future prospects (₹1,040), totaling ₹3,640 per month

Maintaining the undisputed 33% functional disability, the monthly loss was calculated at ₹1,201; applying a multiplier of 18, the future loss of income was revised to ₹2,59,416

The Court also found the original awards for "Pain, Shock, and Suffering" and "Attendant Charges" meager, enhancing them to ₹50,000 and ₹25,000 respectively, to reflect the severity of the fractures and surgical interventions

The Court held that the appellant is entitled to an additional amount of ₹1,37,588 with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realization

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the additional amount within six weeks for subsequent disbursement to the appellant