A credible self-employed income claim need not be rejected for want of documentary proof.

The appellants, the wife and son of Jayaram, sought enhancement of compensation for his death in a road accident on 17 July 2017 while he was driving an auto-rickshaw.

The Tribunal assessed his monthly income at ₹7,000, fixed 50% contributory negligence against him, and awarded ₹5,15,000 after that deduction.

The claimants appealed, challenging the income assessment, compensation under conventional heads, and finding of contributory negligence.

Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of Jayaram’s income and the resulting compensation warranted enhancement.

Whether the Tribunal’s finding of 50% contributory negligence against Jayaram required interference.

Under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, an appeal lies against an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal; the claim itself was brought under Section 166.

In assessing income, Syed Sadiq v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2014) 2 SCC 735, applying Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 13 SCC 236, recognises that documentary proof of income cannot ordinarily be expected from workers in the unorganised sector, and that income may be assessed on the evidence and surrounding circumstances.

For future prospects and conventional heads, the Court applied National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680.

The Court accepted that Jayaram owned and drove an auto-rickshaw and that the claimants consistently stated his income was ₹20,000 per month. In the absence of contrary evidence, it held that lack of documentary proof did not justify reducing that claim.

Applying a 25% addition for future prospects, multiplier 13, and a one-third deduction for personal expenses, it assessed loss of dependency at ₹26,00,000; it also revised consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses under Pranay Sethi.

The Court left the 50:50 apportionment of negligence undisturbed, finding no basis to interfere with the Tribunal’s conclusion.

The judgment’s calculation contains an apparent arithmetic inconsistency: it records annual income as ₹2,40,000 after adding future prospects, but states loss of dependency as ₹26,00,000; the latter figure corresponds to applying the stated multiplier and deduction to annual income of ₹3,00,000.

The Court enhanced total compensation to ₹13,60,500 after deducting 50% for contributory negligence, an increase of ₹8,45,500 over the Tribunal’s award.

Interest remained at 6% per annum from the date of the petition until realisation; amounts already paid or deposited were to be set off, and apportionment and disbursement were to follow the Tribunal’s directions.