Loss-of-income compensation must reflect medically supported treatment duration, enhanced here from three months to six months.

The appellant, an injured claimant, challenged the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi’s award dated 22 May 2015, which granted compensation of ₹1,10,508 with interest at 9% per annum.

During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant died on 16 November 2023, leaving behind his wife, one son and three daughters. The Court condoned the delay and substituted the legal heirs in his place.

The claimants sought enhancement on the grounds that the appellant’s income should have been assessed at ₹21,000 per month as an MCD safai karamchari rather than at the minimum wage of ₹6,656 per month; that loss of income should have been awarded for six months instead of three months; and that compensation for pain and suffering was inadequate.

The Tribunal had awarded ₹19,968 towards loss of wages and ₹50,000 towards pain and suffering.

Whether the claimant’s income could be assessed at ₹21,000 per month on the basis of the salary slip and salary register allegedly issued by the MCD, despite those documents not having been formally proved.

Whether compensation for loss of income ought to be awarded for six months instead of the three months granted by the Tribunal, in view of the medical and hospital records.

Whether the compensation of ₹50,000 awarded for pain and suffering was inadequate in view of the fracture of the right iliac spine and other injuries.

Whether the enhanced and original compensation should be released in favour of the deceased claimant’s wife despite the substitution of all legal heirs.

The Court applied the principles governing assessment of just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the jurisdiction of the MACT to determine pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses arising from motor-vehicle injuries.

A claimant who relies on documentary proof of income must establish such documents through competent evidence, ordinarily by examining the issuing or concerned official; unproved documents cannot by themselves establish the asserted income.

Compensation for loss of income must correspond to the period during which the medical evidence demonstrates incapacity or treatment-related inability to work.

Compensation for pain and suffering is to be assessed having regard to the nature and seriousness of the injuries, including fractures and the duration of treatment.

The Court declined to reassess the claimant’s income at ₹21,000 per month because, although an MCD salary slip and salary register slip had been produced and referred to in cross-examination, neither document had been proved by summoning an MCD officer. The Court therefore did not enhance compensation on that basis.

However, the hospital and medical records demonstrated a treatment history extending to approximately six months. Applying the principle that loss-of-income compensation must reflect the proven period of incapacity, the Court doubled the period from three to six months and enhanced the loss-of-income component from ₹19,968 to ₹39,936, an increase of ₹19,968.

Considering the right iliac-spine fracture and other injuries, it enhanced pain-and-suffering compensation from ₹50,000 to ₹1,00,000.

The total compensation consequently increased from ₹1,10,508 to ₹1,80,476.

The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced compensation before the MACT within four weeks, for release to the deceased claimant’s wife within the following two weeks.

Any unpaid original compensation was also directed to be deposited and released as a lump sum to the wife, notwithstanding the existence of other legal heirs, in accordance with counsel’s instructions.

The appeal was disposed of accordingly, and any statutory deposit was directed to be refunded to the insurer only after compliance with the deposit order.