Minimum wages must determine notional income of deceased victims lacking documentary evidence of earnings.

The appellants/claimants filed an appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award dated 13.05.2019 passed by the 12th Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior

The case arose from the death of 16-year-old Neeraj Arya in a motor accident

The Tribunal originally awarded a total compensation of Rs. 3,85,000, assessing the deceased's notional income at Rs. 30,000 per annum

The appellants sought enhancement, contending the income assessment was too low and that the Tribunal failed to award reasonable sums under conventional heads such as loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, and loss of estate

Whether the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal was just and reasonable or required enhancement based on minimum wages and settled legal principles regarding future prospects and multipliers

The Court applied the principle that in the absence of documentary proof of income, assessments must be based on the Minimum Wages Act, as established in Sukhdevi v. Devendra Kumar and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Renu Devi

Regarding future prospects, the Court relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, which mandates an addition of 40% for deceased individuals below the age of 40

For the selection of the multiplier, the Court followed Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, which prescribes a multiplier of 18 for the age group of the deceased

The Court applied United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur to grant parental consortium and funeral expenses, while maintaining a 50% deduction for personal expenses for a bachelor as per Sarla Verma

The Court observed that the claimants failed to provide substantial evidence of the deceased's income, necessitating an assessment based on minimum wages for an unskilled worker, which it determined to be Rs. 7,125 per month

The Court found that the Tribunal erred by applying a multiplier of 15; given the deceased was 16 years old, the correct multiplier is 18

The Court then recalculated the loss of dependency by adding 40% for future prospects (totaling Rs. 1,19,700 p.a.) and deducting 50% for personal expenses since the deceased was a bachelor, resulting in a yearly loss of Rs. 59,850

Applying the multiplier of 18, the loss of dependency was calculated at Rs. 10,77,300.

Additionally, the Court awarded Rs. 80,000 for loss of consortium (Rs. 40,000 each for two parents) and Rs. 30,000 for loss of estate and funeral expenses

The Court ordered the enhanced amount to carry interest as fixed by the Tribunal from the date of filing the court fees

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within three months

The appellants were directed to pay any differential court fees if the enhanced compensation exceeded the initial valuation of the appeal