When income evidence is absent, compensation may be assessed using applicable minimum wages.

The claimants sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for the death of Vinod Ram, who died after falling beneath a truck on 24 January 2018.

They alleged that the accident resulted from the truck driver’s rash and negligent driving and claimed that the deceased earned ₹9,000 per month as a Khalasi.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded ₹8,26,000, assessing monthly income at ₹4,500.

The claimants appealed under Section 173 of the Act, seeking enhancement.

The High Court condoned a delay of 527 days in filing the appeal; during its pendency, appellant Koshila Devi died.

1. Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of the deceased’s monthly income at ₹4,500 was too low and required enhancement of the compensation.

2. Whether the compensation under the conventional heads, including consortium, required modification in light of the claimants’ deaths during the proceedings.

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for an appeal against an award of a Claims Tribunal, while Section 166 provides the basis for a claim arising from a motor accident.

In assessing compensation, Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, supplies principles concerning personal-expense deductions and multiplier selection; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, governs the addition of future prospects and conventional heads; and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130, concerns consortium.

Where documentary evidence of income is absent, the Court assessed income by reference to the applicable minimum wage for an unskilled labourer.

The Court found the Tribunal’s monthly income assessment of ₹4,500 too low.

In the absence of admissible documentary evidence, it adopted the applicable Chhattisgarh minimum wage of ₹7,930 per month for an unskilled labourer as at the date of the accident.

Applying 40% future prospects, a one-third deduction for personal expenses, and a multiplier of 15, it calculated the loss of dependency at ₹13,32,240.

It left the Tribunal’s awards for loss of estate and funeral expenses unchanged and awarded ₹40,000 under consortium/loss of love and affection, which it treated as payable to the surviving son.

After crediting the Tribunal’s award, the surviving appellant was held entitled to an additional ₹5,76,240, carrying interest at 6% per annum from the date the claim application was filed until realization.

The remaining terms of the Tribunal’s award were left intact.