Minimum wage should be considered for income assessment in disability claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, and proper disability assessment must reflect Tribunal's determinations unless justifiable grounds exist for alteration.

JUDGMENT :

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appeal is by the claimant who suffered a disability in a motor accident, seeking enhancement of the award amounts. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.2,12,800/- (Rupees two lakhs, twelve thousand and eight hundred) which was enhanced by the High Court to Rs.2,23,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and twenty three thousand) together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit.

3. The learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the appellant was employed as a salesman and was earning an amount of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand) per month. However, the Tribunal only took an amount of Rs.3,300/- (Rupees three thousand and three hundred) as his monthly income, adopted from the Schedule applicable to Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988¹[for short, the MV Act] and it was left untouched by the High Court. It is argued that at least the minimum wages applicable on the date of accident ought to have been taken. It is also argued that the reduction of the disability quotient to 40% as assessed by the medical expert was without any valid cause.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation, however, submits that the application itself was filed under Section 163A of the MV Act. There was absolutely no evidence to prove the employment or the income as claimed by the appellant. The disability being functional disability, the Tribunal and the High Court was perfectly correct in having determined it at 40%.

5. We have looked at the order of the Tribunal, and we see that at the outset it has been mentioned that the application is filed under Section 163A of the MV Act. However, the compensation claimed was Rs.7,40,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs and forty thousand) and the averments itself indicates that the contention was that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent manner in which the bus of the Corporation was being driven. Hence, we are of the opinion that though Section 163A of the MV Act was mentioned in the application, the claim is one under Section 166 of the MV Act.

6. As far as the income is concerned, it has to be noticed that though the appellant had claimed that he was a vendor of electronic equipment, there was nothing produced to show the employment, nor the income claimed of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand). However, it has to be noticed that in Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. , (2011) 13 SCC 236, this Court computed the income of a Coolie at Rs.4,500/- (Rupees four thousand and five hundred) per month in the year 2004. Computing a nominal increase, even a Coolie would be entitled to an income of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) per month in the year 2005 when the accident occurred. We are of the opinion that the income of the appellant, hence can be safely computed at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) per month and the appellant being of the age of 27 years, the multiplier applicable would be 17. There should be future prospects of an addition of 40%, the claimant being self- employed. The loss of compensation has to be reduced, in accordance with the disability assessed.

7. The appellant had produced a certificate, Exhibit P-14 wherein the disability was assessed at 60% by the Doctor who was examined as PW-2. It is also stated in cross examination that only skin grafting was done on the appellant. It was hence, the disability was fixed at 50% by the Tribunal. The High Court without any appeal by the Insurance Company reduced the disability to 40%, which was improper. Disability as assessed by the Tribunal hence ha