Unproved income must be assessed at minimum wages with applicable future prospects added.

On 23 May 2012, the claimant was travelling in a Maruti Van towards Village Shitalda when a truck allegedly driven rashly and negligently collided with the van near Village Ranikund.

The claimant sustained grievous injuries, including a fracture of the right shaft of the femur, and underwent surgery and subsequent treatment.

In MACP No. 87 of 2013, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vadodara, partly allowed the claim and awarded ₹1,05,700 with interest at 9% per annum.

The claimant appealed, challenging the award solely on the quantum of compensation.

The Tribunal had assessed the claimant’s functional disability at 10% and apportioned liability between the truck and Maruti Van drivers in the ratio of 70:30.

Whether the claimant’s monthly income ought to be reassessed on the basis of the applicable minimum wages instead of ₹3,000 assessed by the Tribunal.

Whether 40% future prospects ought to be added to the claimant’s income, considering his age of approximately 31 years.

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

Whether interest on the enhanced compensation was liable to be excluded for the 2,074-day delay in filing the appeal.

Whether the insurer of the truck could be directed to pay the entire compensation initially, with liberty to recover 30% from the owner of the Maruti Van in view of composite negligence.

The Court applied the principles governing assessment of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, including the requirement of awarding just compensation.

In the absence of cogent evidence of actual income, income may be assessed with reference to the applicable minimum wages notified by the Government.

For a claimant aged below 40 years, 40% may be added towards future prospects in accordance with National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (16) SCC 680, and Sidram v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 INSC 1202.

Loss of future income is computed by applying the established percentage of functional disability, annual income and the appropriate multiplier; for a claimant aged approximately 31 years, the multiplier is 16.

In cases of composite negligence, the claimant may recover the entire award from one tortfeasor or its insurer, leaving the paying insurer at liberty to recover the other tortfeasor’s proportionate share.

Interest may be denied for the period attributable to delay in filing the appeal.

Since the claimant’s asserted income of ₹6,000 per month was not proved by cogent evidence, the Court considered the minimum wage for a skilled worker prevailing in Gujarat on the date of the accident, namely ₹4,980 per month, and rounded it to ₹5,000.

As the claimant was approximately 31 years old, the Court added 40% towards future prospects, resulting in a monthly income of ₹7,000.

Applying the undisputed functional disability of 10% and multiplier 16, it calculated future loss of income at ₹1,34,400.

The Court further enhanced pain, shock and suffering from ₹15,000 to ₹25,000 because of the femur fracture, surgery, hospitalisation and continued outdoor treatment.

Medical expenses remained at ₹17,100 because they were supported by actual bills.

Actual loss of income for two months was increased to ₹10,000, and special diet, attendant charges and transportation were enhanced to ₹20,000.

The resulting total compensation was ₹2,06,500, yielding additional compensation of ₹1,00,800 over the Tribunal’s award.

However, interest on the enhanced amount was excluded for the 2,074-day delay in filing the appeal.

The total compensation was enhanced from ₹1,05,700 to ₹2,06,500, with additional compensation of ₹1,00,800.

The truck’s insurer was directed to deposit and pay the entire awarded amount, including the enhanced compensation, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization, excluding interest for the 2,074-day delayed period, within six weeks.

In view of composite negligence, the insurer was granted liberty to recover 30% of the amount from the owner of the Maruti Van through execution proceedings before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal was directed to disburse the amount after verification and deduction of any deficit court fee, and no order as to costs was made.