Assessment of compensation based on minimum wages where documentary evidence of income is missing.

The appellant (claimant) filed a claim under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sabalgarh.

The Tribunal had awarded Rs. 7,26,970/- with interest for injuries sustained in a motor accident.

The appellant challenged the award on the grounds that his monthly income was undervalued at Rs. 7,000/- (claiming Rs. 30,000/- as a photographer) and his permanent disability was undervalued at 20% instead of 30%.

Additionally, the appellant filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to introduce new evidence regarding his income.

1. Whether additional documents (receipt books) can be taken on record at the appellate stage under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC.

2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal was inadequate and requires enhancement based on the assessment of income and future prospects.

The court applied Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC, which restricts additional evidence unless sufficient cause for non-production at the trial stage is shown.

Regarding compensation, the court relied on the "Minimum Wages Act" to assess income for unskilled persons where documentary proof is lacking, citing Sukhdevi v. Devendra Kumar and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Renu Devi.

It further applied the principles from National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi regarding 40% future prospects.

Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation regarding the application of a multiplier of 18 for the relevant age group.

The Court first rejected the application for additional evidence, noting the explanation for the delay was "vague" and did not satisfy the "sufficient cause" requirement of the CPC.

On merits, the Court found that the claimant failed to prove a monthly income of Rs. 30,000/-, but determined the Tribunal's assessment of Rs. 7,000/- was too low; it instead fixed the income at Rs. 8,800/- per month as per the Minimum Wages Act.

Applying Pranay Sethi, the Court added 40% for future prospects and maintained the 20% disability and 18 multiplier used by the Tribunal.

The Court also found the compensation for mental agony, pain, and special diet inadequate and enhanced it by a lump sum of Rs. 75,000/-.

The High Court partly allowed the appeal, modifying the Tribunal’s award. The enhanced amount carries interest as fixed by the Tribunal from the date of filing, and the insurance company was directed to pay the sum within three months.