In motor accident claims with insufficient income documentation, courts must apply standardized multipliers and specified future prospect increments to ensure just compensation. Awards must include appropriate amounts for spousal, parental, and filial consortium to account for the loss of love and affection within the family unit.

JUDGMENT

Heard Ms. Mamta R. Vyas, learned advocate for the appellants-original claimants, Mr. Palak H. Thakkar, learned advocate for the respondent no.2-United India Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter to be referred as “the Insurance Company”), and learned advocate Ms. Dhwani Lakhani for Mr. Pankaj R. Desai, learned advocate for the respondent nos.5 and 6, who are the parents of the deceased. Despite service notice of admission of appeal being duly served upon respondent nos.1, 3 and 4, who are the owners of the respective vehicles and Insurance Company of the second vehicle involved, being exonerated, have chosen not to enter appearance and contest the present appeal.

2. With the able assistance of learned advocates on record for the respective parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing.

3. The present appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act of 1988”) at the instance of the original claimants, who are the widow and the minor son of the deceased, who had unfortunately succumbed to the injury caused in the motor vehicle accident. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 12.05.2015 (hereinafter to be referred as “the impugned judgment and award”) passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Rajkot in M.A.C.P. No.489 of 2008, by this appeal, the appellants are praying for enhancement of further amount of compensation to the extent of Rs. 1,89,000/- , with proportionate costs and interest.

4. Learned advocate for the appellants-original claimants has assailed the impugned judgment and award mainly on the ground of the quantum of compensation being determined on the lower side. The attention of this Court was invited to the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal, while considering the issue of the quantum of compensation. It was pleaded before the Tribunal that the deceased was earning Rs. 4,000/- per month by working as a driver and an additional income of Rs. 1,000/- per month from agricultural resources; however, in absence of any corroborative evidence produced in this regard, the Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased as a driver at the rate of Rs. 2,700/- per month.

4.1 Referring to the aforesaid findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal, the learned advocate has submitted that it is a well-settled principles of law that in absence of any documentary proof of income being brought on record, the Tribunal in its wisdom, in order to award just and proper amount of compensation, can refer to the yardstick of minimum wages. She has, therefore, invited my attention to the date of occurrence of the accident, which is reported to be 01.12.2007, and by referring to the minimum wages prevailing at the relevant point of time, has urged this Court to consider the income of the deceased as Rs. 2,800/- per month.

4.2 Learned advocate has further submitted that admittedly the age of the deceased has been fixed as 35 years by considering the copy of the birth certificate produced on record at Exh. 29, wherein the date of birth is indicated as 15.06.1972. Considering the aforesaid age of the deceased, in view of the well-settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, there should be addition of 40% future rise of the aforesaid established income in order to determine the amount of compensation towards the dependency loss. She has further submitted that considering the fact that the deceased was survived by four me