Oral evidence prevails over police records for determining driver's identity and occupational status in motor claims.

On January 6, 2012, the claimant, Majidbhai Kasambhai Sumra, was driving a truck (GJ-3Y-9514) when a brake failure caused the vehicle to overturn, resulting in serious spinal fractures.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Gondal, awarded Rs. 17,82,400/- at 9% interest, holding the insurance company liable.

The insurance company appealed (FA 1288/2025), claiming the claimant was a 'second driver' not covered by the policy premium and was not actually driving at the time.

The claimant appealed (FA 3370/2024) for enhancement of compensation, citing 100% functional disability and insufficient assessment of income including daily allowances.

1. Whether the insurance company is liable to satisfy the award given the dispute over the claimant's status as the actual driver versus a non-covered second driver.

2. Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the claimant's monthly income by excluding daily allowances and limiting functional disability to 90%.

3. Whether the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation under heads of pain, shock, and suffering, future medical expenses, and attendant charges.

The court applied the "Standard Multiplier Method" from Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (16) SCC 680], which dictates adding 40% for future prospects for victims below age 40.

It followed Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar [(2011) 1 SCC 343] regarding the assessment of functional disability vs. physical disability.

It relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chamundeswari [(2021) 18 SCC 596] to prioritize oral evidence over police statements.

Principles for assessing total compensation for permanent disability were drawn from Sidram v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [2022 INSC 1202] and Rahul Ganpatrao Sable v. Laxman Maruti Jadhav [(2023) 13 SCC 334].

The High Court rejected the insurance company's defense that the claimant was an uninsured 'second driver', noting the insurer failed to plead this in their written statement or examine the owner/investigating officer to prove such a claim; following Chamundeswari, the claimant’s consistent oral testimony was given more weight than unverified police statements.

Regarding quantum, the court found the Tribunal erred by excluding the Rs. 200 daily allowance, effectively raising the assessed monthly income from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 11,000.

Based on medical evidence of a burst spinal fracture, failed implants, and loss of bowel/bladder control requiring a catheter, the court upgraded functional disability from 90% to 100%, as the claimant can no longer drive.

The court found the original awards for non-pecuniary heads "meager," significantly increasing compensation for pain and suffering and adding new heads for future medical and attendant charges due to the claimant’s lifelong dependency.

It held that the insurance company is liable as the claimant was the driver at the time of the accident.

The total compensation was enhanced from Rs. 17,82,400 to Rs. 43,04,600 (an increase of Rs. 25,22,200) with 9% interest per annum. The insurer was directed to deposit the additional amount within six weeks for disbursement to the claimant.