[2026:RJ-JP:11291] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 6306/2016 Yamini Bhardwaj D/o Suresh Chand Sharma, R/o T-20-A, Shanti Path, Sanjay Colony, RPA Road, Panipech, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus 1. Vasudev Singh S/o Meharvan Singh, R/o Sikrora, Tehsil Kumher, Distt. Bharatpur Raj. Driver 2. Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Bharatpur Depot, Bharatpur Owner Of Bus 3. National Insurance Company Limited, Through Regional Manager, Branch Office, Panch Batti, M.I. Road, Jaipur Insurer of Bus ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rizwan Ahmed with Mr. Mohsin Mr. Sagar Jindal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA Order 17/03/2026 1. The present appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant- claimant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellant’) under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement of compensation amount awarded, vide judgment and award dated 24.09.2016, by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan, in Claim Case No.152/2014. 2. The sole argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Tribunal has erred in fixing Rs.3,000/- as monthly income of the appellant, however, it should have been determined on the basis of the minimum wages applicable at the relevant point of time. Learned counsel further submitted that at the time of occurrence of the incident, the minimum wages for unskilled labour were Rs.166/- per day. He also submitted that the learned Tribunal has also erred in [2026:RJ-JP:11291] (2 of 4) [CMA-6306/2016] not adding 40% of the income of the appellant towards future prospects. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and supported the impugned award dated 24.09.2016. 4. Heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. 5. From a perusal of the record, it is clear that the appellant in her claim petition claimed her monthly income as Rs.5,000/-, however, in absence of any proof of the said income, the learned Tribunal considered it to be Rs.3000/- per month. 5.1 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, the loss of earning should be determined on the basis of minimum wages prevalent 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 amount of [2026:RJ-JP:11291] (3 of 4) [CMA-6306/2016] 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. 5.2 In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that when the monthly income of the appellant was not proved, her monthly income should have been calculated on the basis of the minimum wages prevalent at the relevant point of time, as notified by the State Government. 5.3 Undisputedly, at the time of incident, the minimum wages for unskilled labour were Rs.166/- per day, therefore, the monthly income of the appellant would be Rs.4,980/- (Rs.166/- x 30). Accordingly, the annual income of the appellant would amount to Rs.59760/- (Rs.4980 x 12). 5.4 According to the age of the appellant, the multiplier of 18 would be applicable, leading to income of Rs.10,75,680 (Rs.59760/- x 18) and after addition of 40% towards future prospects, the total income would amount to Rs.15,05,952 (Rs.10,75,680/- + Rs.4,30,272/-). 5.5 After considering the disability sustained by the appellant, the claim of compensation for the loss of income would be Rs.1,05,417/- (Rs.15,05,952/- x 7%). However, the learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.45,360/-. 5.6 Accordingly, the appellant is entitled for an enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.60,057/- (Rs. 1,05,417/- - Rs. 45,360/-) under the head of loss of income. 6. In view thereof, the respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.60,057/- within a period of two months from today. The remaining terms and conditions of the impugned award dated 24.09.2016 shall remain intact. [2026:RJ-JP:11291] (4 of 4) [CMA-6306/2016] 7. It is directed that the enhanced amount shall carry the interest in terms of the impugned award and the same shall be calculated from the date of filing of claim petition. 8. The enhanced amount shall be disbursed in terms of the award passed by the learned Tribunal. 9. The instant appeal is disposed of in the above terms. 10. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J SAHIL SONI /105