Unproved income must be assessed at prevailing minimum wages, with future prospects added for compensation.

On 23 May 2012, Anjanaben Vinodbhai Vasava was travelling in a Maruti Van bearing registration no. GJ-15-DD-9973 towards Village Shitalda. Near Village Ranikund, a truck bearing registration no. GJ-06-VV-8957, allegedly driven rashly and negligently by respondent no.1, collided with the Maruti Van, causing the appellant multiple grievous injuries and requiring surgery and prolonged medical treatment.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vadodara, found composite negligence and awarded compensation of Rs.2,98,437/- with interest at 9% per annum.

The claimant challenged the award only on the quantum of compensation, contending that her income, future prospects, loss of income, pain and suffering, special diet, attendant charges and transportation had been assessed inadequately.

The appeal involved a delay of 2,074 days, for which interest had not been granted for the delayed period.

Whether the claimant’s monthly income should be reassessed on the basis of the applicable minimum wages instead of Rs.3,000/- assessed by the Tribunal.

Whether 40% addition towards future prospects was applicable to the claimant, aged approximately 25 years, and whether compensation for future loss of income required enhancement.

Whether the amounts awarded under actual loss of income, pain, shock and suffering, and special diet, attendant charges and transportation required enhancement in view of the injuries and treatment undergone.

Whether the insurer of the truck should pay the entire compensation initially, subject to recovery of the co-negligent vehicle’s share from its owner, and whether interest was payable for the delayed period of 2,074 days.

The Court applied the principles governing “just compensation” under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, including assessment of notional income where actual income is not proved, reliance on applicable minimum wages, and computation of loss of future earning capacity by reference to functional disability and the appropriate multiplier.

It relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, which permits addition towards future prospects, and Sidram v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 INSC 1202, in support of such addition for a self-employed or informally employed claimant.

For a claimant aged about 25 years, a 40% addition for future prospects and multiplier of 18 were applied.

In cases of composite negligence, the claimant may recover the entire award from one of the jointly liable tortfeasors, leaving that tortfeasor to seek contribution or recovery from the other negligent party.

Interest may be excluded for a period attributable to delay in prosecuting the appeal.

The Court found that the claimant’s alleged income of Rs.8,000/- per month was not proved by cogent evidence. However, the Tribunal’s assessment of Rs.3,000/- was below the notified minimum wages for a skilled worker in Gujarat, which were Rs.4,980/- per month in May 2012. The Court therefore rounded the monthly income to Rs.5,000/-.

Since the claimant was approximately 25 years old, it added 40% for future prospects, resulting in a monthly income of Rs.7,000/-. Applying the undisputed functional disability of 25%, the multiplier of 18, and the annualisation formula, the Court calculated future loss of income at Rs.3,78,000/-.

Considering the multiple fractures, surgery, hospitalisation and subsequent outpatient treatment, it enhanced compensation for pain, shock and suffering from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.50,000/-.

Actual loss of income was increased from two months to three months, calculated at Rs.15,000/-, and the composite amount for special diet, attendant charges and transportation was enhanced to Rs.25,000/-.

Medical expenses of Rs.90,137/- were retained because they were supported by proved medical bills.

The total compensation was consequently recalculated at Rs.5,58,137/-.

As the appeal had been filed after a delay of 2,074 days, no interest was awarded on the additional compensation for that period.

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

Since the Tribunal had apportioned composite negligence in the ratio of 70:30, the truck insurer was permitted to recover 30% of the amount from the owner of the Maruti Van through execution proceedings.

The Tribunal was directed to disburse the amount after verification and adjustment of any deficit court fee, and the award was modified accordingly.