Unproved income must be assessed at prevailing minimum wages, with 40% future prospects for young injured claimants.

On 26 November 2017, the appellant, aged approximately 26 years and working as a truck conductor, was travelling in truck No. GJ-8-Y-7360 when a collision occurred involving trucks bearing Nos. GJ-3-AT-4654 and MH-17-AG-9957.

The appellant suffered multiple grievous injuries and underwent hospitalization and subsequent outpatient treatment.

In Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 46 of 2018, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, B.K. District, Deodar awarded compensation of Rs. 5,89,508/- with interest at 7.5% per annum.

The appellant challenged the award in appeal, confining the challenge to the quantum of compensation.

The Tribunal had assessed the appellant’s monthly income at Rs. 5,000/-, determined functional disability at 47.5%, and awarded amounts under various heads.

Whether, in the absence of documentary proof of actual income, the appellant’s income ought to have been assessed according to the applicable minimum wages rather than at Rs. 5,000/- per month?

Whether the appellant was entitled to an addition of 40% towards future prospects, having regard to his age of approximately 26 years?

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

The Court applied the principles governing assessment of just compensation under the motor accident compensation law.

Where actual income is not proved by cogent evidence, income may be assessed on the basis of the minimum wages prevailing at the time of the accident.

Relying on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680, and Sidram v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., (2023) 3 SCC 439, the Court held that 40% of the established income should be added towards future prospects for a claimant aged below 40 years.

Loss of future earning capacity is calculated by applying the appropriate age-based multiplier to the income, future-prospects addition and functional disability; the multiplier of 17 was applied for the appellant’s age.

Compensation must also be reasonable under consequential heads such as medical-related incidental expenses and actual loss of income during the recovery period.

Since the appellant’s income as a conductor was not proved through cogent evidence, the Court rejected the Tribunal’s assessment of Rs. 5,000/- per month and adopted the notified minimum wage for a skilled worker prevailing in Gujarat in November 2017, namely Rs. 8,388/-, rounded to Rs. 8,400/- per month.

As the appellant was approximately 26 years old, the Court added 40% towards future prospects, resulting in a monthly income of Rs. 11,760/-.

Applying the undisputed functional disability of 47.5%, a multiplier of 17, and the annual income, the Court calculated future loss of income at Rs. 11,39,544/-.

The compensation for special diet, transportation and attendant charges was enhanced from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- because of the multiple fractures, hospitalization and continuing treatment.

The period of actual loss of income was increased from two months to three months, resulting in an award of Rs. 25,200/- calculated at Rs. 8,400/- per month.

The awards for medical expenses and pain, shock and suffering were left undisturbed as they were not challenged.

The total compensation was enhanced from Rs. 5,89,508/- to Rs. 12,64,752/-, entitling the appellant to additional compensation of Rs. 6,75,244/-.

The additional amount was directed to carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization.

Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 were directed to deposit the additional compensation and interest, in the ratio determined by the Tribunal, within six weeks of receiving the judgment.

The Tribunal was directed to disburse the amount after deducting any deficit court fee and completing due verification.

No order as to costs was made.