Courts must assess unorganised-sector income from oral evidence and circumstances, not minimum wages alone.

Baljinder Singh died in a motor vehicle accident in 2001 due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, who was driving a Fiat car owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchkula, held the driver, owner and insurer jointly and severally liable and awarded ₹3,30,000 with interest at 9% per annum under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The claimants—Baljinder Singh’s wife, three minor children and parents—appealed for enhancement, contending that the deceased’s income had been assessed too low, future prospects had not been added, and inadequate amounts had been awarded under conventional heads.

The deceased was stated to have operated an automobile repair workshop and earned ₹8,000 per month; evidence established that he ran the workshop and paid monthly rent for the shop.

The Tribunal had assessed his income at ₹2,400 per month on the basis of minimum wages.

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was inadequate because the deceased’s income was wrongly assessed and future prospects were omitted.

Whether the claimants were entitled to enhanced compensation under the heads of loss of dependency, spousal consortium, parental consortium, filial consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses.

Whether the enhanced compensation was payable by respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally, with interest from the date of filing of the claim petition.

The Court applied Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, under which claimants are entitled to just compensation for death caused by a motor accident.

Relying on Syed Basheer Ahamed v. Mohd. Jameel, the Court held that compensation must be just, reasonable and based on a rational assessment rather than conjecture or arbitrariness.

Under Chandra alias Chander alias Chanda Ram v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav, absence of documentary proof of income does not justify rejecting credible oral evidence, and minimum wages are only a yardstick.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi governed addition of future prospects and compensation under conventional heads.

Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation governed the deduction for personal expenses and selection of the multiplier.

Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur supported awards for spousal, parental and filial consortium.

The Court also relied on Sadhana Tomar v. Ashok Kushwaha for treating the deceased’s father as financially dependent upon him.

The finding of rash and negligent driving was left undisturbed because the Tribunal had recorded it and no respondent had filed an appeal or cross-objections challenging that finding.

Although the claimants could not produce account books or documentary proof of earnings, the unrebutted evidence showed that the deceased operated an automobile repair workshop and paid rent for the premises.

Applying the principle that strict documentary proof is not mandatory for an unorganised-sector worker, the Court assessed his monthly income at ₹3,000 rather than the Tribunal’s ₹2,400 minimum-wage figure.

Since the deceased was 37 years old, 40% was added towards future prospects, producing a monthly income of ₹4,200.

As there were six dependants, one-fourth was deducted for personal expenses, leaving a monthly dependency loss of ₹3,150. Applying the multiplier of 15, the loss of dependency was calculated at ₹5,67,000.

The Court further awarded ₹70,000 to the wife under conventional heads and ₹40,000 each to the three children and both parents for parental and filial consortium.

The total compensation was consequently recalculated at ₹8,37,000.

The Court enhanced the total compensation from ₹3,30,000 to ₹8,37,000, resulting in an enhancement of ₹5,07,000.

The entire compensation remained payable by respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally, with interest at 9% per annum from 28 July 2001, the date of filing of the claim petition, until realization.

From the enhanced amount, ₹50,000 each, with proportionate interest, was directed to be paid to claimants No.2 to 6, while the balance was directed to be paid to claimant No.1, the deceased’s wife.