Motor accident compensation for laborers must be assessed based on prevailing minimum wages.

The appellant/claimant filed an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award dated March 6, 2020, passed by the 8th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, in Claim Case No. 689/2017.

The Tribunal had awarded a total compensation of ₹4,09,831/- for injuries sustained in a motor accident.

The appellant, a laborer, contended that the Tribunal incorrectly assessed his monthly income at ₹6,000/- and failed to award adequate compensation for non-pecuniary heads such as pain and suffering.

The appeal sought a enhancement of the compensation based on prevailing minimum wages and increased allowances for special diet and suffering.

1. Whether the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the claimant at ₹6,000/- instead of the prevailing minimum wage of ₹9,230/- at the relevant time.

2. Whether the compensation awarded under the heads of pain and suffering, special diet, and attendant charges required enhancement.

The Court applied Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which governs appeals against the awards of Claims Tribunals.

The Court followed the legal principle that in the absence of definitive proof of income for a laborer, the monthly income should be determined based on the minimum wages prevailing at the time of the accident.

The Court applied the established methodology for calculating loss of earning capacity, which includes adding 40% for future prospects for a claimant with permanent disability and applying a multiplier (17 in this case) based on the age of the claimant.

The High Court observed that the Tribunal’s assessment of the claimant’s monthly income at ₹6,000/- was insufficient and failed to align with the minimum wage standards applicable at the time of the incident.

The Court re-fixed the monthly income at ₹9,230/-.

The Court recalculated the loss of income by adding 40% for future prospects (₹1,55,064/- per annum), applying the 20% disability factor as determined by the Tribunal (₹31,012/-), and using a multiplier of 17, resulting in a total of ₹5,27,217/- for loss of earning capacity.

Regarding non-pecuniary damages, the Court found the Tribunal's award of ₹60,000/- for pain, suffering, special diet, and attendant charges to be inadequate and enhanced it to ₹75,000/- to reflect the facts and circumstances of the case.

The claimant is entitled to an additional compensation amount of ₹1,99,497/-.

The Court directed the respondents to deposit this additional amount within three months, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date the claim application was filed until its realization.

All other conditions of the original Tribunal award were ordered to remain intact.