A duly issued BDO income certificate carries a presumption of correctness unless rebutted.

Respondent nos. 1–3, the heirs of late Sonam Sherpa, instituted a motor accident claim arising from an accident on 13.01.2024 involving a vehicle owned by respondent no. 4, Karma Tamang.

The deceased and his son died in the accident, and the driver also succumbed to his injuries.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal found that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the authorised driver; the vehicle’s documents, including the driving licence, were valid; and the insurance policy was effective.

Relying, inter alia, on an income certificate issued by the Block Development Officer showing agricultural income of ₹36,450 per month, the Tribunal awarded ₹48,50,000 with interest at 10% per annum from 21.11.2024, the date of filing of the claim petition.

The National Insurance Company challenged the award under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, principally disputing the evidentiary value of the income certificate and the rate of interest.

1. Whether the income certificate issued by the Block Development Officer, certifying the deceased’s income at ₹36,450 per month, was reliable and sufficient to determine loss of income when the certificate did not disclose the basis of calculation.

2. Whether the Tribunal’s award of interest at 10% per annum was excessive and ought to be reduced to 9%.

3. Whether the insurer was liable to satisfy the award under the valid insurance policy covering legal liability towards passengers.

The appeal was governed by Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which permits an appeal against an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

Section 171 of the Act confers discretion on the Tribunal to award simple interest at such rate and from such date as it specifies, provided that the date is not earlier than the date of making the claim.

A certificate issued by a competent public authority under Notification No. 25/HOME/2007 dated 30.04.2007, which authorised Block Development Officers to issue income certificates, is a public document carrying a presumption of correctness; that presumption must be rebutted by credible evidence.

An appellate court ordinarily will not interfere with the Tribunal’s discretionary determination of interest unless the rate is shown to be excessive or exorbitant.

A valid insurance policy covering the insurer’s legal liability towards passengers renders the insurer liable to satisfy the compensation award.

The High Court held that the BDO was statutorily authorised to issue the income certificate under the 2007 Government notification.

Since the certificate was duly exhibited before the Tribunal, it constituted a public document and was entitled to a presumption of correctness.

The insurer’s cross-examination of claimant no. 1 did not dislodge that presumption or otherwise establish that the certified income was incorrect; therefore, the Tribunal was justified in relying on the monthly income of ₹36,450.

Regarding interest, the Court observed that the Tribunal had exercised the discretion conferred by Section 171, awarding 10% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition, which was permissible.

The insurer offered no substantial reason beyond its assertion that 10% was high, and failed to show that the rate was excessive or exorbitant.

Finally, because the owner had obtained a valid policy and paid the premium covering legal liability towards passengers, the insurer remained liable to pay the compensation.

It upheld the Tribunal’s reliance on the BDO’s income certificate, the award of 10% interest from 21.11.2024, and the finding that the insurer was liable under the valid passenger-liability policy.

The appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal’s award of ₹48,50,000 with interest at 10% per annum was left undisturbed.