[2026:RJ-JP:15009] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1949/2014 Pawan Jain S/o Mahaveer Jain, age about 38 years, R/o Mahadev Ji Galli, Ward No. 7, Nainwa, Tehsil-Nainwa, District-Bundi (Raj) ----Claimant-Appellant Versus 1. Balu Ram S/o Madho Lal, R/o village Balapura, Post Bosariya, Tehsil-Uniyara, District – Tonk (Driver) 2. Raja Ram S/o Sanwariya Jat, R/o Rampura, Post-Kanwada, Teshil – Deoli, District – Tonk (Owner) 3. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Office at Shubhash Bazar, Tonk (Insurer) ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Deepak Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Ms. Archana Mantri HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA Judgment 09/04/2026 1. Being dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 08.01.2014 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk, Rajasthan (for short 'Tribunal') in MAC case No. 115/2012 whereby the claim petition was partly allowed, the claimant-appellant (for short ‘claimant’) has preferred the present appeal for enhancement of compensation so awarded by the learned Tribunal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the claimant filed a claim petition stating therein that on 28.12.2011, he was going from Tonk to Nainwa on his motorcycle and at around 5 PM, when he reached Arniya Mall near Balaji temple, another motorcycle bearing registration No.RJ26-SD-2968, being driven by respondent No. 1 in rash and negligent manner, hit his motorcycle. As a result of said accident, the [2026:RJ-JP:15009] (2 of 5) [CMA-1949/2014] claimant sustained four grievous and four simple injuries and he remained hospitalized for nine days. 3. In the claim petition, a compensation of Rs. 62,94,000/- was claimed by the claimant for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses suffered by him. 4. The learned Tribunal, vide impugned judgment and award dated 08.01.2014, partly allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs. 4,19,857/- in favour of the claimant, along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum. 5. Learned counsel for the claimant has made the following submissions:- (i) At the time of accident, the claimant was engaged in agricultural activities and was also deriving income from the sale of spices. However, the learned Tribunal determined the loss of income on the basis of notional monthly income of the claimant as Rs.3500/-. It is submitted that even in the absence of evidence of income, the monthly income of the claimant should be assessed on the basis of minimum wages as notified by the State Government for an unskilled worker at the relevant point of time, which was Rs.135/- per day and pecuniary loss should be determined based on the said amount. (ii) No addition has been made by the learned Tribunal in the income of the claimant towards future prospects. (iii) The learned Tribunal has failed to award compensation towards pain & suffering and loss of amenities. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the submissions made hereinabove by learned counsel for the claimant and has supported the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has awarded [2026:RJ-JP:15009] (3 of 5) [CMA-1949/2014] a total sum of Rs.24,000/- as compensation for the injuries in addition to compensation of Rs.1,70,100/- under the head of loss of earning capacity, therefore, no further enhancement is required to be made in the compensation so awarded. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. From a bare perusal of the record and the impugned judgment and award, it is revealed that though the claimant had pleaded before the learned Tribunal that he used to earn through agricultural activities and by selling spices but he failed to produce any cogent evidence to prove the same. Under these circumstances, the learned Tribunal assessed the income of the claimant as Rs. 3500/- per month. 8.1 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Govind Yadav Vs. The New India Insurance Company Limited, reported in (2011) 10 SCC 683, has held that in absence of any evidence of the income, the loss of earning should be determined on the basis of minimum wages payable to a worker at the relevant point of time. For ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced below: "20. A brief recapitulation of the facts shows that in the petition filed by him for award of compensation, the Appellant had pleaded that at the time of accident he was working as Helper and was getting salary of Rs. 4,000/- per month. The Tribunal discarded his claim on the premise that no evidence was produced by him to prove the factum of employment and payment of salary by the employer. The Tribunal then proceeded to determine the amount of compensation in lieu of loss of earning by assuming the Appellant's income to be Rs. 15,000/- per annum. On his part, the learned Single Judge of the High Court assumed that while working as a Cleaner, the Appellant may have been earning Rs. 2,000/- per month and accordingly assessed the compensation under the first head. 21. Unfortunately, both the Tribunal and the High Court overlooked that at the relevant time minimum wages payable to a worker were Rs.3,000/- per month. Therefore, in the absence of other cogent evidence, the Tribunal and the High Court should have determined the [2026:RJ-JP:15009] (4 of 5) [CMA-1949/2014] amount of compensation in lieu of loss of earning by taking the Appellant's notional annual income as Rs.36,000/- and the loss of earning on account of 70% permanent disability as Rs. 25,200/- per annum." 8.2 In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that when monthly income of the claimant was not proved, it should have been assessed on the basis of minimum wages payable to a worker at the relevant point of time. 8.3 Undisputedly, at the time of incident, the minimum wages payable to an unskilled worker were Rs.135/- per day, therefore, the monthly income of the claimant would be Rs.4,050/- (Rs.135/- x 30). As a result thereof, the compensation for pecuniary loss viz. loss of earning capacity due to injuries sustained, deserves to be computed cumulatively on the basis of the aforesaid monthly income. 9. So far as the second contention of the claimant is concerned i.e. addition in income towards future prospects, at the time of accident, the age of claimant was determined as 40 years, therefore, as per the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, addition @ 25% will be made in the income of the claimant towards future prospects. 10. In respect of the last contention raised by the claimant, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to grant a lump-sum amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities. 11. In view of the above, the compensation payable to the claimant is re-computed as under:- S.No. Particular Amount assessed 1. Monthly Income Rs.135/- x 30 = Rs.4050/- 2. Annual Income Rs.4050 x 12 =Rs.48,600/- [2026:RJ-JP:15009] (5 of 5) [CMA-1949/2014] 3. According to the age of claimant i.e. 40 years, multiplier 15 to be applied. Rs.48,600 x 15 =Rs.7,29,000/- 4. Add 25% towards future prospects (+) Rs.7,29,000 + Rs.1,82,250 = Rs.9,11,250/- 5. Loss of Earning Capacity (27% permanent disability) Rs.9,11,250 x 27% = Rs.2,46,037/- 6. Pain & suffering and loss of amenities Rs.50,000/- 7. Food & Diet, Attendant, Conveyance (as awarded by Tribunal) Rs.2,500/- 8. Medical Expenses (as awarded by Tribunal) Rs.2,23,257/- Total compensation (S. No. 5+6+7+8) Rs. 5,21,794/- Less amount awarded by the Tribunal (-) Rs.4,19,857/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs. 1,01,937/- 12. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is enhanced by Rs.1,01,937/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount within a period of two months from today. The rest of the impugned award shall remain intact. 13. It is directed that the enhanced amount shall carry the rate of interest in terms of the award passed by the learned Tribunal, from the date of filing of the claim petition. The enhanced amount shall be disbursed in terms of the award passed by the learned Tribunal. 14. The present appeal is disposed of in the above terms. 15. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 16. Registry is directed to send back the record of the case to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J SKS/160