Oral testimony of employer regarding income is reliable evidence for determining compensation in the unorganized sector.

On October 14, 2014, Devender Kumar was cycling near Barout, UP, when he was hit by a bus (UP-17C-7141) driven by Sachin Kumar Sharma.

Kumar succumbed to grievous injuries, leading to an FIR under Sections 279/427/304A of the IPC.

The legal representatives of the deceased filed a claim under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) found the driver negligent based on eyewitness testimony and awarded Rs. 25,30,000 with 9% interest.

The Tribunal assessed the deceased's monthly income at Rs. 15,000 based on the testimony of his employer (PW-3), despite a lack of documentary evidence like salary slips.

The Appellant (Insurance Company) challenged the award primarily on the grounds of income assessment and interest rate.

Whether the Tribunal was justified in assessing the benchmark income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000 per month solely on oral testimony in the absence of documentary proof.

Whether the interest rate of 9% per annum awarded by the Tribunal was excessive.

The Court applied Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, regarding "just compensation".

It relied on *National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi*, which mandates that compensation be fair, reasonable, and based on pragmatic computation rather than a pittance.

The court cited *Chandra v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav* establishing that in the unorganized sector, oral evidence can be relied upon and a lack of salary certificates does not justify adopting the lowest tier of minimum wages.

The court cited *Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.* establishing that in the unorganized sector, oral evidence can be relied upon and a lack of salary certificates does not justify adopting the lowest tier of minimum wages.

It further applied *Syed Sadiq v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.*, noting that workers in informal sectors cannot be expected to produce formal documentation of income.

The Court reasoned that the Motor Vehicles Act is beneficial legislation aimed at providing "just compensation" rather than a mere "apology for compensation".

It observed that in India's informal economy, employment is often undocumented and wages are paid in cash, making bank statements or appointment letters unavailable for many.

The Court found the testimony of the employer (PW-3) credible, as he produced company registration documents (Form B and Form S.T.-8) even if he lacked an attendance register for the deceased.

Since the Appellant failed to provide contradictory evidence or successfully impeach the credibility of the witnesses (PW-1 and PW-3), the Court held that a "reasonable guesswork" approach was appropriate.

The assessment of Rs. 15,000 per month was deemed pragmatic and not "so exorbitant" as to be detached from ground realities.

It held that the assessment of Rs. 15,000 monthly income was legally sound based on the preponderance of probabilities.

The Court directed the release of the remaining 50% of the awarded amount plus interest to the claimants and ordered the refund of the statutory deposit to the Appellant.

The 9% interest rate was maintained as being neither excessive nor contrary to law.