Absence of documentary proof does not preclude reasonable estimation of a deceased’s income.

On 27 July 2011, Sornalingam died from injuries sustained when the Tata Sumo in which he was travelling collided with a lorry near Kanadukaththan Petrol Bunk.

His claimants sought compensation, stating that he earned ₹12,000 per month; they relied on evidence that he worked in land brokerage and a cable-related business, but produced no documentary proof of income.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal found the lorry driver negligent and awarded ₹10,17,000, including loss of dependency calculated using a monthly income of ₹6,000, a one-fourth deduction for personal expenses, and a multiplier of 16.

The insurer appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging only the quantum.

1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in fixing the compensation awarded, including its assessment of the deceased’s income and the amounts under the other heads.

The appeal was brought under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

In assessing compensation where documentary evidence of income is absent, the court may make a reasonable estimate having regard to the available evidence, the deceased’s occupation, the accident date and prevailing economic conditions; the estimate may involve an element of reasonable guesswork.

It records that the Tribunal deducted one-fourth of income for personal and living expenses and applied a multiplier of 16, and finds its overall approach reasonable.

The insurer argued that the deceased’s unproven income should have been assessed below ₹6,000 per month and that the other awards were excessive.

The Court rejected that contention: the deceased’s land-brokerage and cable-related work, together with the 2011 accident date and prevailing cost of living, supported the Tribunal’s monthly-income assessment despite the absence of documentary proof.

It also found no basis to disturb the Tribunal’s dependency calculation or its assessment under the other heads, concluding that the overall award was reasonable and consistent with the applicable compensation principles.

It directed the insurer to deposit the award amount with accrued interest, if not already deposited, within six weeks of receiving a copy of the order; the claimants may withdraw their respective shares according to the Tribunal’s apportionment.

No costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.