Notional income of Rs. 15,000 per month upheld for deceased engaged in multiple occupations without documentary evidence.

The deceased, Parmar Ranjitbhai Chandubhai, was sleeping on the side of the Ahmedabad–Indore Highway on November 14, 2021, when he was run over by a truck (Reg. No. RJ-14-GH-7166) driven in a rash and negligent manner.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Kheda at Nadiad, partly allowed the claim petition (MACP No. 124 of 2022), awarding Rs. 29,88,000/- with 7.5% interest.

The Insurance Company appealed this award, challenging the Tribunal’s assessment of the deceased’s monthly income at Rs. 15,000/- in the absence of documentary proof, arguing it should be restricted to the prevailing minimum wage of Rs. 9,490/-.

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the notional income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/- per month in the absence of documentary evidence.

2. Whether the compensation awarded was excessive based on the evidence of the deceased’s occupation in masonry and agriculture.

The Court applied the principle that where a deceased is engaged in multiple vocations (e.g., agriculture and masonry), the cumulative income from all sources must be considered.

It relied heavily on the precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sardaben Bhikhubhai Vekariya Ors. v. Mayurbhai Vithalbhai Movaliya Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 8364 of 2026), which established that even in the absence of strict proof of income for an accident occurring in the early 2000s, a notional income of Rs. 15,000/- per month could be justified based on future prospects and familial responsibilities.

The Court rejected the Appellant's contention that income should be limited to minimum wages. Although no documentary evidence was produced, the Court found the oral testimony of the deceased’s mother (Exhibit-18) credible, noting she remained unshaken during cross-examination.

The Court reasoned that since the deceased supported a family of four and was engaged in both agriculture and masonry, it was "difficult to believe" the family could be maintained on the meager minimum wage suggested by the insurer.

By applying the ratio in Sardaben Bhikhubhai Vekariya, the Court determined that the Tribunal’s assessment of Rs. 15,000/- was reasonable and not "on the higher side," especially given the socio-economic reality of maintaining a large household.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and directed that any amount deposited with the Registry be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. No order as to costs was made.