A deceased’s income may be reasonably assessed from proven occupation despite the absence of documentary income records.

The claimants sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, after Md. Khasibul died when a bus struck him and another person as they stood by the NH 31 on 24 October 2019.

The Tribunal awarded Rs. 11,07,500 with 5% interest, finding the insurer liable.

The Insurance Company appealed, disputing the assessed income, the award of parental consortium, and the driver’s licence.

The claimants cross-objected, seeking higher compensation and interest.

1. Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of the deceased’s monthly income and the resulting compensation required modification

2. Whether the insurer established that the bus driver lacked a valid driving licence, relieving it of liability

3. Whether the award for parental consortium, conventional heads of compensation, and interest required adjustment

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides the basis for a claim for compensation arising from a motor-vehicle accident.

In assessing compensation, the Court applied the principles associated with National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, including the addition for future prospects and compensation under conventional heads; it considered parental consortium awarded by the Tribunal inconsistent with that decision.

The Court assessed the deceased’s income from the evidence concerning his occupation and applied a personal-expenses deduction and multiplier in calculating dependency loss.

The insurer’s challenge to the driving licence failed where the licence was valid on the accident date and the insurer adduced no evidence to establish otherwise.

The claimants had proved that the deceased worked as a tractor agent, although they produced no documentary proof of income.

Considering his occupation and the number of dependants, the Court fixed monthly income at Rs. 8,000, added 25% for future prospects, deducted one-fourth for personal expenses, and applied a multiplier of 13, producing dependency loss of Rs. 11,70,000.

The Court rejected the licence defence because the licence was valid until 25 June 2020—after the accident—and the insurer had not examined the owner or driver to prove a breach.

It found the Tribunal’s parental-consortium award inconsistent with Pranay Sethi and calculated Rs. 84,000 for loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium.

Although the arithmetic total was Rs. 12,54,000, it considered Rs. 12,50,000 just and reasonable.

The insurer was directed to deposit that amount with the Registrar General within eight weeks, with credit for any amount already deposited under the Tribunal’s award.

The claimants may withdraw the compensation in accordance with the shares fixed by the Tribunal, subject to completion of the necessary formalities.