### Burden of proving income lies on claimants; negative shifting of burden onto insurance company is impermissible.

On May 10, 2010, Kanabhai Kalyanbhai Baraiya and Laxmiben Kanabhai Baraiya were traveling in a Tata Ace (Mini Truck) to sell fish

An offending Truck (No. GJ-18-X-9807) driven in a rash and negligent manner collided with their vehicle, resulting in the death of both individuals

Their legal heirs filed MACP Nos. 809/2011 and 810/2011.

The Tribunal, relying on income certificates (Exhs. 42 & 43) without formal proof or examination of witnesses, assumed monthly incomes of ₹30,000 and ₹15,000 respectively

The Insurance Company appealed against the "exorbitantly high" compensation, challenging the unproven income and the application of 40% future prospects and 1/4th deduction for personal expenses

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in determining the income of the deceased based on unproven income certificates and guesswork in the absence of cogent evidence

2. Whether the addition for future prospects and the deduction for personal expenses were correctly applied as per established legal precedents

The court primarily applied Section 166 and 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

It relied on the principle that negligence must be proved on the touchstone of preponderance of probability, citing Bimla Devi v. H.R.S.T.C. and Parmeshwari Devi v. Amir Chand

Regarding income determination in the absence of proof, it applied Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav

For the calculation of future prospects and standard deductions, the court adhered to National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi

and for parental/filial consortium, it applied Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and Janabai v. M/s ICICI Lambord Insurance Co. Ltd.

The High Court found that the Tribunal committed a material error by shifting the burden of proof onto the Insurance Company to disprove the claimants' asserted income

Since the income certificates were disputed, contained interpolations, and no witnesses were examined, they could not be accepted as "gospel truth"

Consequently, the Court reverted to the minimum wages for a skilled person prevailing in 2010 (₹4200/month)

Applying Pranay Sethi, the Court reduced the future prospects from 40% to 25% as the deceased were aged 47 and 50

The Court upheld the 1/4th deduction for personal expenses due to six dependents and the multiplier of 13

Consortium was standardized to ₹40,000 per dependent plus 10% (totaling ₹48,400 each)

The total reassessed compensation for each claim petition was fixed at ₹9,41,028, down from the original awards of ₹49,44,000 and ₹24,87,000

The Court directed the Tribunal to refund the excess amounts deposited by the Insurance Company—specifically ₹15,45,972 and ₹40,02,972—back to the appellant while disbursing the corrected amounts to the claimants