A salary certificate from proper custody may be accepted despite the producing witness lacking personal knowledge.

Pravin, the son of the appellants, was riding a motorcycle with his friend as pillion rider when a tempo, owned by Respondent No. 1 and insured by Respondent No. 2, allegedly came from the opposite direction at high speed, crossed onto the wrong side of the road, and collided with the motorcycle. Pravin sustained fatal head injuries and died at the spot; an offence was registered against the tempo driver.

His parents filed a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thane. The owner did not contest the claim, while the insurer contested it but did not examine any witness. The Tribunal awarded ₹5,07,000 with consequential benefits.

The parents preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement, contending that the Tribunal had wrongly excluded Pravin’s part-time income, applied an incorrect multiplier, and made an excessive deduction towards personal expenses.

Whether the deceased’s part-time income of ₹3,000 per month, supported by a salary certificate, ought to have been included in the computation of compensation despite the producing witness lacking personal knowledge of its contents?

Whether the multiplier applicable to the deceased, aged 25 years and 5 months on the date of the accident, was 18 rather than 10?

Whether the deduction towards the deceased’s personal expenses should have been one-half, as the surviving dependants were his two parents, rather than one-third?

Whether the compensation was required to be recalculated by applying future prospects and the subsequently recognised conventional heads of compensation?

The Court applied the principles governing assessment of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, including the requirement of just compensation and the permissibility of adopting a flexible standard of proof in motor accident claim proceedings.

It relied on Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, AIR 2009 SC 3104, for the standard multiplier, the deduction towards personal expenses, and the addition for future prospects.

Under that framework, a deceased aged 25 years attracts a multiplier of 18, and where the deceased is survived by two parents, one-half is ordinarily deducted towards personal expenses.

The Court also relied on New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Alpa Rajesh Shah, 2014 ACJ 1747, for the principle that the completed age, rather than the age including the uncompleted fraction, is to be considered for determining the multiplier.

Documentary evidence produced from proper custody and not specifically challenged as forged or fabricated may be accepted, even where the formal producing witness lacks personal knowledge of its contents.

The Court found that the salary certificate showing part-time earnings of ₹3,000 per month had been signed by the owner of Hawai Industries and produced by Balaram Deshmukh, who had been authorised by the owner to depose before the Tribunal.

Although Deshmukh admitted that he lacked personal knowledge of the certificate’s contents, the insurer had not suggested that the certificate was forged, fabricated, or unsigned by the owner. Since the document came from proper custody and strict proof is not required in claim proceedings, the Tribunal erred in excluding the part-time income.

The Court further held that Pravin’s completed age was 25 years, notwithstanding that he was 25 years and 5 months old on the accident date; consequently, the multiplier was 18 under Sarla Verma and Alpa Rajesh Shah, rather than 10.

As the deceased left behind two dependent parents, the proper deduction for personal expenses was one-half. The Court therefore computed monthly income at ₹9,227, added 50% towards future prospects, deducted one-half towards personal expenses, and applied the multiplier of 18. It also awarded amounts under funeral expenses, loss of estate, and loss of consortium.

The respondents were held jointly and severally liable to pay the deficit amount within eight weeks, subject to payment of the additional court fee.