Motor accident compensation must reflect prevailing minimum wages and 40% future prospects for young claimants.

On 2 October 2003, the appellant-claimant, aged approximately 23 years and travelling with his goods in Jeep No. GJ-3-Y-6517, sustained grievous injuries when Truck No. GJ-18-T-1257 allegedly collided with the jeep due to rash and negligent driving.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Dhrangadhra, partly allowed Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1 of 2004 and awarded ₹87,500 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing until realization.

The claimant filed the present appeal challenging the quantum of compensation, particularly the assessment of income, non-award of future prospects, and the amounts granted for pain and suffering, attendant charges, special diet, and transportation.

Whether the Tribunal had correctly assessed the claimant’s income when his actual income was not proved by cogent evidence, or whether it ought to have applied the prevailing minimum wages.

Whether the claimant, aged approximately 23 years, was entitled to an addition of 40% towards future prospects while computing loss of earning capacity.

Whether the compensation awarded under future loss of income, actual loss of income, pain and suffering, attendant charges, special diet, and transportation required enhancement.

In assessing compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, where actual income is not established by cogent evidence, the court may determine income on the basis of the minimum wages prevailing at the time of the accident.

For a claimant aged about 23 years, 40% of the established income is to be added towards future prospects.

Future loss of income is computed by applying the percentage of functional disability to the enhanced monthly income and multiplying it by twelve and the appropriate age-based multiplier; the multiplier of 18 was applied in the present case.

Compensation must be just and reasonable under the relevant heads, including actual loss of income, medical expenses, pain and suffering, attendant charges, special diet, and transportation.

No specific statutory provision or precedent was cited in the judgment.

The High Court found that the claimant’s income had not been proved through reliable evidence. Accordingly, instead of retaining the Tribunal’s annual income assessment of ₹22,000, it applied the Government of Gujarat’s minimum wage for a skilled worker prevailing in 2003, namely ₹2,300 per month.

Since the claimant was approximately 23 years old, the Court added 40% towards future prospects, increasing the monthly income to ₹3,220.

Applying the undisputed functional disability of 12% and the multiplier of 18, it assessed future loss of income at ₹83,462.

Actual loss of income for three months was reassessed at ₹6,900.

Considering the claimant’s hospitalization and subsequent outdoor treatment, the Court enhanced pain, shock, and suffering from ₹6,500 to ₹25,000, and attendant charges, special diet, and transportation from ₹5,000 to ₹20,000.

Medical expenses of ₹31,000, supported by proved bills, were left undisturbed.

Respondent Insurance Companies Nos. 3 and 6 were directed to deposit the additional amount with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization, in the ratio determined by the Tribunal, within six weeks of receiving the judgment.

The Tribunal was directed to disburse the amount to the claimant after deducting any deficit court fees and completing due verification.