1. Motor accident — 13% permanent disability — Claim for compensation under Motor Vehicles Act — Enhancement of award. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 636
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.
Om Singh S/o Kishan Singh - Appellant
Versus
Raman Kumar S/o Sh. Bishan Das - Respondent
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 492 of 2010
Decided On : 23-02-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Ram Sharan Sharma
For the Respondent: Ms. Shruti Pareek
For the Appellant : Mr. Ram Sharan Sharma
For the Respondent: Ms. Shruti Pareek
In motor accident claims, notified minimum wages apply when documentary income evidence is lacking. Age stated in petitions is presumptive unless rebutted, and claimants under 40 are entitled to a 40% increase for future prospects.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act - Quantum of compensation - Assessment of income - Where documentary evidence of income is unavailable, the court can rely on notified daily wages for unskilled labor to determine monthly income (Para 6).
(B) Determination of age - Multiplier - Age mentioned in the claim petition and evidence should be accepted if not rebutted by documentary evidence, which in turn determines the applicable multiplier (Para 7).
(C) Future prospects - Claimants below 40 years of age are entitled to an additional 40% compensation towards future prospects (Para 8).
Facts of the case:
Claimant suffered 13% permanent disability in a vehicle accident. The Tribunal assessed monthly income at Rs. 2,000/- and age within the 40-45 range. An appeal was filed seeking enhancement of compensation based on a higher monthly income, the claimant's actual age of 34 years, and the inclusion of future prospects.
Findings of Court:
Monthly income was revised to Rs. 2,190/- based on government minimum wage notifications for unskilled labor. Age was accepted as 34 years, which revised the multiplier to 16. An additional 40% compensation for future prospects was granted. The amount awarded for pain and suffering was found to be just and proper.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal's assessment of the claimant's monthly income and age was correct and whether the claimant was entitled to additional compensation for future prospects.
Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of documentary proof of income, reliance on notified minimum wages for unskilled labor is appropriate. Age stated in a claim petition should be accepted unless rebutted by evidence. Claimants under the age of 40 are entitled to 40% additional compensation for future prospects.
Result: Appeal partly allowed; enhanced compensation of Rs. 29,727.36p granted.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Claimant sought enhancement of compensation disputing income assessment and multiplier; respondents supported Tribunal's award as adequate. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
3. Tribunal erred in assessing income and age without basis; oral evidence unrebutted; applicable daily wage rate adopted. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 )
4. Income of daily wager must be assessed based on prevailing minimum wages, not arbitrary figures; multiplier determined by proven age. (Para 6 , 7 )
5. Appeal partly allowed; compensation enhanced; respondents directed to deposit enhanced amount with interest. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 )
6. How should a claimant's income be assessed in the absence of documentary evidence?
The court may rely on unrebutted oral evidence and prevailing minimum wage rates for daily wagers to determine monthly income. (Para 6 )
7. What multiplier applies for a claimant aged 34 years in a motor accident claim?
A multiplier of 16 applies for a claimant aged 34 years, as per the structured formula under the Motor Vehicles Act. (Para 7 )
8. Is a claimant below 40 years entitled to future prospects in compensation?
Yes, future prospects at 40% of the assessed income must be awarded per the principle in National Insurance Co. v. Pranay Sethi. (Para 8 )
9. What is the appropriate compensation for pain and suffering for a permanent disability of 13%?
An award of Rs. 38,000 under the head of pain and suffering is considered just and proper for a 13% permanent disability. (Para 9 )
JUDGMENT :
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.
1. The instant civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and award dated 29.01.2009, passed in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur, hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal” by which the claim petition submitted by the claimant-appellant (hereinafter referred to as “the claimant”) has been partly allowed and the respondents have been directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- to the claimant along-with interest at the rate 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the same, the claimant has approved this Court by way of filing this appeal seeking enhancement of the amount of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
2. Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the claimant met with an accident on 12.11.2006 and the accident was caused by the driver of the Army Truck bearing No. 03C-068274W and the driver was working under the employment and for the benefit of the army and therefore the claim petition was submitted against the Union of India. Counsel further submits that in the aforesaid accident the claimant has suffered 13% permanent disability and at the time of accident he was working at a kite manufacturing shop wherein he was earning an income of Rs.6000/- per month, however, without any basis the Tribunal has assessed his monthly income as Rs.2,000/- per month. Counsel submits that in support of his contentions, the owner of the kite manufacturing shop was also examined in the witness box and his evidence has not been rebutted by the respondents. In alternative, he also argued that even looking to the work of the claimant, his income should have been considered at least Rs. 100/- per day. Counsel further submits that in the claim petition, the age of the claimant was mentioned as 34 years but without any basis the same has been determined by the Tribunal in between the age group of 40-45 years. Counsel submits that looking to the age of the claimant, i.e., 34 years, the multiplier of 16 should have been applied but in the instant case, by treating the age of the claimant in between the age group of 40-45 years, the multiplier of 15 has been applied.
3. Counsel further submits that under the head of future prospects, not a single penny has been awarded and under the head of pain and suffering, a petty amount of Rs. 38,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, under these circumstances the impugned award needs suitable enhancement.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that no documentary evidence has been produced on record to show that the claimant was earning a salary of Rs.6000/- per month. Counsel submits that that the Tribunal has assessed the income and age of the deceased as per the material available on its record. Hence, under all the heads, a suitable amount of compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal while passing the impugned award which does not require interference of this Court and the instant appeal is liable to be rejected.
5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record.
6. Perusal of the record indicates that the claimant has met with an accident on 12.01.2006 and this fact is not in dispute that he has sustained certain injuries on his body parts which resulted in him suffering from 13% permanent disability. Now the question that remains for consideration of this Court is as to whether the Tribunal has committed an error while assessing the income of the claimant as Rs. 2,000/- per month or whether the same requires any interference by this Court. Though oral evidence has been produced by the claimant before the Tribunal by examining himself as well as the owner of the kite manufacturing shop to show that he was earning a salary of Rs.6000/- per month but no documentary evidence has been produced
