Quantum Enhancement for Skilled Worker Based on Minimum Wages, Future Prospects, and Facial Disfigurement

On February 20, 2022, the appellant, Maulik Barot, was traveling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle when he was hit from behind by a car driven negligently at excessive speed

The appellant sustained multiple fractures and facial disfigurement

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Kheda at Nadiad, awarded a total compensation of ₹9,87,562/- with 7.5% interest

Dissatisfied with the quantum, specifically regarding the assessment of monthly income and the exclusion of certain compensation heads, the claimant preferred this appeal

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the appellant’s monthly income at ₹7,500/- in the absence of documentary evidence, rather than applying the prevailing minimum wage

2. Whether the appellant is entitled to additional compensation for future prospects, loss of amenities, and enhanced pain and suffering

The court relied on the principles for calculating compensation in motor accident claims established in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Sidram v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited and Anr. (2023) 3 SCC 439

These precedents mandate the addition of 40% of actual income towards "future prospects" for victims below the age of 40

the court applied the Minimum Wages Act standards as notified by the Government of Gujarat for skilled workers when cogent evidence of income is missing

The High Court found the Tribunal’s income assessment of ₹7,500/- too low, noting that the minimum wage for a skilled worker at the time of the accident (February 2022) was ₹9,490/-

Applying the Pranay Sethi formula, the court added 40% for future prospects to this base wage, totaling ₹13,286/- per month

With an undisputed 37% functional disability and a multiplier of 18 (based on the victim's age of 23), the future loss of income was recalculated to ₹10,61,820/-

The court further observed that the Tribunal failed to award damages for "loss of amenities and enjoyment of life" despite the claimant’s facial disfigurement, and found the award for "pain and suffering" inadequate given the multiple fractures and duration of treatment

The court directed Respondent No. 3 (Insurance Company) to deposit the additional amount of ₹5,39,350/- with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of the claim petition until realization within six weeks

The impugned award was modified accordingly, and the Tribunal was directed to disburse the amount to the claimant upon verification