Minimum wages, not notional income, must be the basis for calculating dependency in the absence of specific salary proof.

On August 22, 2011, the deceased, Dungerbhai, was a passenger in an auto-rickshaw that overturned due to the rash and negligent driving of Opponent No. 1

The deceased succumbed to his injuries during treatment.

The legal heirs filed a claim petition seeking Rs. 10,00,000/-.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Surat, awarded Rs. 7,10,000/- with 9% interest, applying a "pay and recover" order against the insurer

The claimants appealed to the High Court challenging the quantum of compensation, specifically contesting the Tribunal’s assessment of notional income and conventional heads

Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at a notional rate of Rs. 3,000/- instead of the prevailing minimum wages for 2011

Whether the compensation awarded under conventional heads (loss of estate, funeral expenses, and consortium) was just and in accordance with established precedents

The Court applied the principle from Govind Yadav v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., which mandates that in the absence of salary proof, the Tribunal must rely on prevailing minimum wages

Future prospects were calculated at 40% as per National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi

The multiplier of 17 and 1/3 deduction for personal expenses were governed by Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation

Furthermore, the court applied Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and Janabai v. M/s ICICI Lombard regarding the entitlement of each dependent to parental/filial consortium

Inflated the conventional heads by 10% as per Pranay Sethi

The Court found that the Tribunal incorrectly fixed the deceased’s income at Rs. 3,000/- per month.

Since the accident occurred in 2011, the Court upwardly revised the income to Rs. 4,500/- per month based on minimum wages for unskilled labour

Applying a 40% increase for future prospects (Rs. 6,300/-) and deducting 1/3 for personal expenses, the monthly dependency was set at Rs. 4,200/-.

Multiplied by 12 months and a multiplier of 17, the loss of dependency was reassessed at Rs. 8,56,800/-

Regarding conventional heads, the Court determined the Tribunal failed to award consortium to each of the three dependents.

Consequently, it awarded Rs. 48,400/- per claimant (totaling Rs. 1,45,200/-) and increased funeral expenses and loss of estate to Rs. 18,150/- each to reflect the 10% escalation rule

The Court held that the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 4,00,300/- with proportionate costs and interest at 9% p.a.

Respondent No. 3 (Insurance Company) was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within four weeks, with a direction to the Tribunal to recover deficit court fees before disbursement