Notional income of a vegetable vendor must be determined based on specific occupation rather than general standards.

On October 5, 2016, the deceased was standing near a road at Road Station, Nadia, when an offending truck (WB-41D/5499) traveling at high speed lost control and hit him.

The victim succumbed to grievous injuries while being transported to the hospital.

The claimant (appellant) filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Learned District Judge, Nadia, allowed the claim, awarding Rs. 5,28,960/- with 6% interest, based on a notional income of Rs. 3,300/- per month.

The appellant challenged this award, seeking an enhancement of compensation on the ground that the victim was a vegetable vendor whose actual income was higher.

1. Whether the Learned Trial Court erred in assessing the notional income of the deceased at Rs. 3,300/- per month despite evidence of his occupation as a vegetable vendor.

2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Trial Court should be enhanced based on current judicial precedents and price indices.

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Where the specific occupation of a victim is established but documentary proof of exact income is missing, notional income should be determined based on the nature of the business, price index, and "guesswork" to ensure just compensation.

Smt. Sarathi Barman v. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 2138 of 2026, Supreme Court of India).

The Court observed that while P.W. 1 testified that the deceased was a vegetable vendor, the Trial Court had rejected the claimed income of Rs. 7,500/- due to a lack of documentation.

The High Court reasoned that once the occupation is established, notional income cannot be generic; it must be reasonable and specific to the trade.

Referencing the Supreme Court’s decision in Sarathi Barman, where a vegetable vendor's income was considered as Rs. 9,000/-, the Court determined that for an accident in 2016, a notional income of Rs. 6,000/- per month was "just and reasonable".

To this, the Court added 40% for future prospects (totaling Rs. 8,400/-), deducted 50% for personal expenses (net Rs. 4,200/-), and applied a multiplier of 18 based on the victim's age, resulting in a dependency loss of Rs. 9,07,200/-.

The High Court modified the Judgment and Award dated 11-09-2024, enhancing the total compensation to a "just and reasonable" sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-.

The Respondent/Insurance Company was directed to deposit the enhanced amount with 6% interest per annum from the date of filing the claim until the date of payment.