Absence of documentary proof requires assessment of income based on prevalent minimum wages in motor accident claims.

On August 28, 2018, the claimant was plying a motorcycle when an ST Bus owned by the appellant Corporation, driven in a rash and negligent manner while overtaking, collided with him

The claimant sustained serious injuries, including fractures, resulting in 32% permanent partial impairment

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Kheda at Nadiad, held the bus driver solely negligent and awarded compensation of ₹5,24,400

The Corporation appealed on the grounds of contributory negligence, while the claimant filed cross-objections seeking enhancement of compensation citing undervalued monthly income and lack of future prospects

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in holding the ST Bus driver solely negligent for the accident

2. Whether the income assessed by the Tribunal was appropriate in the absence of documentary evidence and whether the claimant is entitled to future prospects

The Court applied the principle of "preponderance of probabilities" for determining negligence, relying on *Bimla Devi v. H.R.T.C.* and *Parmeshwari Devi v. Amir Chand*

Regarding quantum, it followed *Govind Yadav v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.*, which mandates using prevalent minimum wages if income proof is absent

For future prospects and multipliers, the Court applied the standards set in *Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation* and *National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi*

Furthermore, per *Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh*, the Court affirmated its power to award compensation exceeding the original claim amount if justified by evidence

The Court rejected the Corporation’s plea of contributory negligence, noting the driver's own admission in cross-examination that the collision occurred while he was overtaking; as a driver of a heavy vehicle, he bore a higher duty of care

Regarding the cross-objection, the Court found the Tribunal's assessment of ₹5,000 monthly income too low.

It reassessed the income at ₹8,400 per month based on minimum wages for a skilled person (Lab Assistant) in 2018

The Court further determined that the Tribunal erred by not awarding a 40% addition for future prospects as required for a 35-year-old victim under the *Pranay Sethi* guidelines

Consequently, the future economic loss was recalculated using the agreed 32% disability and a multiplier of 16

It modified the award, increasing the total compensation from ₹5,24,400 to ₹9,51,534—an enhancement of ₹4,22,134

The appellant Corporation was ordered to deposit the additional amount with interest within four weeks, and the Tribunal was directed to deduct any deficit court fees on the enhanced amount