An appointment order may justify higher income assessment despite absent salary slips and bank records.

The appellants, parents of the deceased, challenged the Tribunal’s award arising from a fatal motor accident on 29 December 2017.

The Tribunal found the car driver negligent and awarded ₹23,78,000, calculating dependency on a monthly income of ₹15,000, with 40% added for future prospects, a 50% deduction for personal expenses, and a multiplier of 18.

The claimants sought enhancement, relying on an appointment order indicating estimated annual salary of ₹2,68,000; the insurer opposed an increase, noting the absence of salary slips, bank statements, or employer evidence.

Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of the deceased’s monthly income at ₹15,000 should be enhanced in light of the appointment order and the evidence on record

Whether the compensation awarded under the other heads required interference

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

In reassessing loss of dependency, the Court applied the calculation used in the case: assessed monthly income plus 40% for future prospects, deduction of one-half for the unmarried deceased’s personal expenses, and a multiplier of 18, reflecting her age of 23.

The Court also considered whether the amounts awarded for consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses were just and proper.

Although the appointment order showed estimated annual salary of ₹2,68,000, it was issued in September 2016 and the claimants produced no salary slip or bank statement and did not examine the employer.

The Court nevertheless considered the appointment order together with the accident date and the deceased’s age, and found ₹17,000 per month to be an appropriate income assessment.

Applying 40% future prospects, a one-half deduction, and multiplier 18, it recalculated loss of dependency at ₹25,70,400.

It found no basis to alter the other heads, which it considered just and proper.

Total compensation was enhanced from ₹23,78,000 to ₹26,80,400, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition until deposit.

The insurer was directed to deposit the amount, less sums already deposited, within six weeks of receiving the judgment.

The claimants were not entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation for the 463-day delay period specified in the Court’s earlier order; the Tribunal’s other directions remained unchanged.