Notional income for loss of earnings may be enhanced based on occupation and circumstances despite absent proof.

The claimant, aged 35, was injured when an auto-rickshaw struck his two-wheeler on 26 November 2011.

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal found the auto-rickshaw driver negligent and awarded ₹1,60,924, including compensation for 6% disability, six months’ loss of earnings, pain and suffering, and other heads.

The claimant appealed, seeking enhancement; he asserted that he was a practising advocate earning ₹45,000 per month, but had produced no proof of income.

Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of compensation, particularly for disability, required enhancement.

Whether the amounts awarded for loss of earnings, pain and suffering, and nourishment were adequate in light of the claimant’s injuries, age, and occupation.

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for an appeal against an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.

In assessing compensation, the Court considered the evidence concerning the claimant’s injuries and disability, the absence of proof of actual income, and the circumstances relevant to the duration of recovery and the appropriate amounts under the individual heads of compensation.

The Medical Board assessed the claimant’s disability at 6%, and the Court found no basis to interfere with the Tribunal’s award of ₹5,000 per percentage, totalling ₹30,000.

Although the claimant did not prove his asserted income of ₹45,000 per month, the Court considered his age, the accident date, and his work as a practising advocate and increased the notional monthly income from ₹5,000 to ₹10,000. It therefore enhanced six months’ loss of earnings from ₹30,000 to ₹60,000.

Finding the awards for pain and suffering and nourishment inadequate given the injuries, the Court increased them to ₹20,000 and ₹10,000, respectively, while leaving the remaining heads unchanged.

The insurer was directed to deposit the amount, less any sum already deposited, within six weeks; the claimant may withdraw it subject to the Tribunal’s directions and payment of any required court fee on the enhancement. No order as to costs was made.