Unproved income in motor accident claims must be assessed using notified minimum wages.

On 14 September 2013, Sanjaybhai Kalusinh Dabhi, aged approximately 19 years, was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle when a dumper allegedly driven rashly and negligently collided with it. He sustained serious injuries and died as a result

His parents filed a claim petition seeking compensation, asserting that he worked as an electrician and earned ₹7,000 per month.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kheda at Nadiad, partly allowed the claim and awarded ₹3,75,000 with interest at 6% per annum.

The claimants appealed against the award, challenging the quantum of compensation.

1. Whether the deceased’s income should be reassessed with reference to the applicable minimum wages rather than the notional income of ₹3,000 per month adopted by the Tribunal

2. Whether future prospects should be added to the deceased’s income and, as he was a bachelor, whether 50% should be deducted towards personal expenses

3. Whether the claimants were entitled to enhanced compensation under the heads of loss of consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses

4. Whether the Tribunal’s direction preserving the insurer’s right of recovery against the other tort-feasor required interference

The Court applied the principles in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (16) SCC 680, under which future prospects are added to the income of a deceased below 40 years and standardized amounts are awarded for loss of estate and funeral expenses.

It also relied on Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130, recognizing the entitlement of parents to compensation for loss of filial consortium.

In the absence of reliable proof of actual income, the Court applied the minimum wages notified for a skilled worker in Gujarat.

For a deceased bachelor, 50% of income is deducted towards personal expenses, and the multiplier is selected with reference to the deceased’s age; for a 19-year-old, the multiplier is 18.

Although the claimants asserted an income of ₹7,000 per month, they produced no cogent evidence proving actual earnings. The Court therefore replaced the Tribunal’s notional income of ₹3,000 with the applicable minimum wage for a skilled worker, ₹5,500 per month.

Since the deceased was 19 years old, 40% was added for future prospects, resulting in a monthly income of ₹7,700.

As he was unmarried, the Court deducted 50% for personal expenses, leaving a monthly dependency contribution of ₹3,850; applying the multiplier of 18, it calculated future loss of dependency at ₹8,31,600.

Because both parents survived him, each was awarded ₹48,400 for loss of consortium, totalling ₹96,800.

The amounts for loss of estate and funeral expenses were enhanced to ₹18,150 each in accordance with Pranay Sethi.

The total compensation was thus recalculated at ₹9,64,700, against which the ₹3,75,000 already awarded was deducted.

The total compensation was enhanced to ₹9,64,700, and the claimants were awarded an additional ₹5,89,700, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization.

The insurer was directed to deposit and satisfy the enhanced award, along with the original award, within six weeks of receiving the order.

The Tribunal was directed to disburse the amount after verification and deduction of any deficit court fee.

The insurer’s right to recover from the other tort-feasor was maintained, and the impugned award was modified accordingly.