Unproved income in motor claims must be assessed using prevailing minimum wages, with future prospects added.

On 9 December 2015, the claimant, Ganpatbhai Madhurbhai Vanzara, was waiting outside the Himmatnagar ST Stand when a tempo driven by respondent No. 1 allegedly came from the wrong side in a rash and negligent manner and hit him, causing crush injuries and fractures, including fractures of the left tibia and fibula.

The claimant was engaged in agricultural work and also supplied milk to a dairy. His income was not proved by cogent evidence. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal assessed his monthly income at Rs.3,500, found 18% functional disability, and awarded Rs.1,01,660 with interest at 7.5% per annum.

The claimant filed the present appeal challenging the award solely on the ground of inadequacy of compensation.

Whether the claimant’s monthly income ought to be reassessed on the basis of the minimum wages prevailing at the time of the accident instead of Rs.3,500 assessed by the Tribunal?

Whether the claimant, aged approximately 53 years, was entitled to an addition towards future prospects and, if so, at what rate?

Whether the compensation awarded for future loss of income, actual loss of income, pain, shock and suffering, and special diet, attendant charges and transportation required enhancement?

The Court applied the principles governing just compensation under the motor-vehicle accident compensation law, including assessment of notional income where actual income is not proved and computation of future loss of income by applying the percentage of functional disability and the appropriate age-based multiplier.

It held that, in the absence of cogent evidence of income, the minimum wages notified by the Government of Gujarat should be considered.

For future prospects, the Court relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (16) SCC 680, and Sidram v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 INSC 1202, to apply a 10% addition to the claimant’s income.

The Court used an 18% functional disability and multiplier of 11, corresponding to the claimant’s age, to calculate future loss of income.

Because the claimant’s asserted income of Rs.9,000 per month was unsupported by cogent evidence, the Court rejected both that claim and the Tribunal’s lower assessment of Rs.3,500 per month, and adopted the prevailing minimum wage for an unskilled worker, stated to be Rs.7,886 and rounded to Rs.8,000 per month.

Applying the principles in Pranay Sethi and Sidram, the Court added 10% towards future prospects, arriving at a monthly income of Rs.8,800.

Since the Tribunal’s assessment of 18% functional disability was undisputed, and the appropriate multiplier was 11, future loss of income was calculated at Rs.2,09,088.

The Court maintained medical expenses at Rs.5,000, enhanced pain, shock and suffering from Rs.7,500 to Rs.25,000 considering the fractures, crush injuries, surgery and 17-day hospitalisation, and enhanced special diet, attendant charges and transportation from Rs.2,500 to Rs.20,000.

It also awarded actual loss of income for two months, rather than one month, amounting to Rs.16,000.

The total compensation was enhanced from Rs.1,01,660 to Rs.2,75,088, comprising Rs.2,09,088 for future loss of income, Rs.16,000 for actual loss of income, Rs.5,000 for medical expenses, Rs.25,000 for pain, shock and suffering, and Rs.20,000 for special diet, attendant charges and transportation.

The claimant was accordingly awarded additional compensation of Rs.1,73,428, carrying interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization.

The insurer was directed to deposit the additional amount with interest within six weeks, after which the Tribunal was directed to disburse the compensation following due verification and deduction of any deficit court fee.