Unchallenged salary records may establish income in motor accident claims despite non-examination of their author.

The claimant appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MVC No. 5904/2011.

He was injured when his motorcycle was struck by another motorcycle ridden negligently; he sustained a comminuted fracture of both bones of his right leg and underwent treatment, including surgery.

The Tribunal awarded Rs.87,000, but assessed his monthly income at Rs.4,000 despite Ex.P9 showing salary of Rs.16,992; it also awarded amounts for pain and suffering, future medical expenses, loss of income during treatment, incidental expenses, and loss of amenities.

The insurer opposed enhancement and sought a reduction in the interest rate.

The claim arose under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the appeal was brought under Section 173(1) of that Act.

In motor-accident claims, strict rules of evidence do not apply; material having probative value may be considered when assessing the claim.

Compensation should be assessed under the relevant heads in light of the evidence concerning income, injuries, treatment, and resulting effects.

The Court also referred to the Supreme Court’s consistent practice of awarding interest at 9% per annum when rejecting the insurer’s request to reduce interest, though it ultimately maintained the Tribunal’s 8% rate on the enhanced sum.

The Court found that the Tribunal had insufficient reason to reject Ex.P9: the claimant’s cross-examination contained no suggestion challenging its genuineness, and strict evidentiary rules did not apply.

It therefore accepted monthly income of Rs.17,000, rounded from Rs.16,992, and—because the claimant remained employed—declined to award future loss of income.

Applying a three-month healing period, it increased loss of income during treatment to Rs.51,000.

It also enhanced pain and suffering to Rs.50,000, future medical expenses to Rs.20,000, and loss of amenities to Rs.40,000, while finding Rs.10,000 for conveyance, attendant, and incidental expenses appropriate.

These amounts resulted in total compensation of Rs.1,71,000, or Rs.84,000 more than the Tribunal’s award.

The Court rejected the insurer’s request to reduce interest.

The insurer was directed to deposit the additional compensation within six weeks, and the entire compensation with interest was ordered released to the claimant electronically upon deposit.