Evasive Denial in Pleadings and Absence of Cross-Examination on Salary Constitute Admission of Income

The Appellant, a 34-year-old mason, was a pillion rider on a motorcycle that was hit by a rashly driven bus (HP55B-7502) on January 3, 2010

He sustained severe injuries and was hospitalized for approximately one month

He filed a claim under Section 166 of the M.V. Act seeking ₹5,00,000

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded ₹1,16,726 with 7.5% interest, holding the owner and driver (Respondents 1 and 2) liable, while exonerating the insurer due to a dishonored premium cheque

The Appellant challenged the award seeking enhancement, citing the MACT’s failure to recognize his permanent disability and its underestimation of his monthly income

During the appeal, the Appellant moved an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to introduce a disability certificate issued after the original trial

1. Whether the Appellant is entitled to production of additional evidence (disability certificate) under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC

2. Whether the MACT erred in assessing the Appellant's monthly income as ₹5,000 despite uncontroverted testimony claiming ₹10,000

3. Whether the Appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation under heads of functional disability, future prospects, and non-pecuniary damages

The court applied Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act regarding appeals and Section 166 regarding compensation

Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC for the admission of additional evidence in appellate proceedings, noting that motor accident claims are summary in nature and governed by the preponderance of probabilities

Regarding income assessment, the court applied the principle that uncontroverted statements on oath constitute admission by the opposing party

Loss of Earning Capacity assessment based on functional disability relative to the victim's vocation and adding 40% for future prospects for those in the unorganized sector

The High Court observed that because the Respondents did not cross-examine the Appellant on his claimed income of ₹10,000 per month or specifically deny it in their pleadings, the MACT erred in reducing it to ₹5,000

The Court allowed the disability certificate (Ext. P-X) as additional evidence because it was issued only after the MACT's decision, making it impossible to produce earlier

Analyzing the 25% locomotor disability, the Court determined that for a mason, whose work requires full physical use of limbs, this equated to a 50% functional disability

The Court calculated loss of earning capacity using a multiplier of 16 (based on age 34) and included 40% for future prospects

It further revised non-pecuniary damages, noting that a one-month hospitalization involving surgery warranted higher sums for pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life

The compensation was enhanced from ₹1,16,726 to ₹16,35,326. Respondents 1 and 2 (owner and driver) were held jointly and severally liable to pay the enhanced amount with 7.5% interest from the date of petition filing