Minimum wages of skilled workers and future prospects must be considered for income assessment of drivers without salary proof.

On May 22, 2010, the appellant, a truck driver, was injured when his vehicle was struck by a rashly driven truck.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded him ₹2,94,000/- with 9% interest, assessing his monthly income at a flat ₹3,000/- due to lack of documentary proof.

The appellant challenged this award, seeking enhancement based on the minimum wage for skilled workers, future prospective income, and inadequate compensation for pain and suffering despite a 37% permanent body disability.

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the claimant's monthly income at ₹3,000/- in the absence of cogent evidence, rather than applying the prevailing minimum wage for skilled workers.

2. Whether the claimant is entitled to an addition of 40% to his income towards future prospects and higher compensation under non-pecuniary heads.

The Court applied the principle that in the absence of specific proof of income, the Tribunal must rely on the minimum wages prevalent at the time of the accident to ensure "just compensation".

The Court further applied the doctrine of "Future Prospects," which necessitates adding a percentage (40% for those under 40 years) to the actual income for calculating loss of dependency/earning capacity, and utilized the standard multiplier system (17 for age 30) for disability-related future loss of income.

The Court found the Tribunal's assessment of ₹3,000/- per month unsustainable, noting that as of May 2010, the minimum wage for a skilled worker was ₹4,210/-. Applying the law, the Court added 40% for future prospects to this base wage, totaling ₹5,894/-, and calculated the future loss of income at ₹4,44,879/- using a 37% disability rate and a multiplier of 17.

Regarding non-pecuniary damages, the Court observed that the claimant suffered multiple fractures and underwent surgery; therefore, the ₹10,000/- awarded for "pain, shock, and suffering" was deemed "meager" and "inadequate," leading to an increase to ₹50,000/-. Similarly, "special diet and attendant charges" were hiked to reflect the reality of prolonged recovery.

The High Court partly allowed the appeal, enhancing the total compensation from ₹2,94,000/- to ₹5,74,009/-, and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the additional amount within six weeks.