Consistent employer testimony and salary records can establish income above minimum wages in motor accident claims.

On 28 December 2012, Yogesh Pal, aged 34 years, was standing near the main gate of Shanti Farms, Chandan Hola, when a TSR bearing registration no. DL-1LL-8028, allegedly driven rashly and negligently by Ameen, struck him, causing fatal injuries.

His wife and five other legal representatives instituted a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Saket Courts, New Delhi.

The Tribunal awarded compensation of ₹28,27,000 with interest at 9% per annum by award dated 15 January 2015.

The Insurance Company challenged the award, principally disputing the assessment of the deceased’s monthly income at ₹12,000 and the computation of future prospects and conventional heads of compensation.

The claimants relied upon a salary certificate and salary vouchers produced by the employer’s manager, which recorded monthly wages of ₹12,000.

Whether the deceased’s monthly income could be assessed at ₹12,000, rather than on the basis of minimum wages, in light of the salary certificate, salary vouchers and oral evidence of the employer’s representative?

Whether the Tribunal correctly awarded 50% towards future prospects, or whether the award required modification under the principles laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi?

Whether the compensation under consortium, loss of love and affection, loss of estate and funeral expenses required recalculation in accordance with binding precedent?

What consequential directions should be issued regarding release of the compensation, refund of the excess deposit and redistribution of the deceased claimant’s share?

The Court applied the principles governing assessment of income in motor accident claims, as summarised in Savita & Ors. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2026:DHC:3626: absence of formal documentary proof does not invariably require adoption of the lowest minimum wage; income may be assessed on the basis of consistent testimony, employer evidence, employment circumstances and reasonable judicial estimation, with minimum wages serving as an appropriate benchmark where necessary.

The Court relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680, which prescribes the applicable addition for future prospects and standardised amounts under conventional heads; for a deceased aged 34 years, future prospects were to be assessed at 40%.

It further applied United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780, under which separate compensation for loss of love and affection is not payable, while consortium is awarded to eligible spouse, children and parents.

The Court held that the evidence sufficiently established the deceased’s income at ₹12,000 per month.

The wife’s testimony was corroborated by the salary certificate, salary vouchers showing payments to the deceased and other employees, the employer’s manager’s testimony, and an authorisation letter permitting verification of the records.

Consequently, the Insurance Company’s argument that minimum wages should automatically be adopted was rejected, consistently with Savita.

However, the Tribunal’s addition of 50% for future prospects was reduced to 40% because the deceased was 34 years old, in accordance with Pranay Sethi.

Applying a one-fourth deduction for personal expenses and a multiplier of 16, the loss of dependency was recalculated at ₹24,19,200.

Consortium was enhanced to ₹2,40,000 for the wife, three children and both parents; loss of love and affection was deleted; loss of estate was fixed at ₹15,000 and funeral expenses at ₹15,000.

The balance amount, being the original compensation minus the reduction, together with accrued interest, was directed to be released to the claimants in a lump sum, considering the age of the award and the accident.

The excess amount deposited, along with accrued interest, was directed to be refunded to the Insurance Company.

Since respondent no. 5 had died, that respondent’s share was directed to be divided equally among respondents nos. 1–4 and 6; any statutory deposit was also ordered to be refunded to the Insurance Company.

The appeal was accordingly disposed of and pending applications were rendered infructuous.