Uncontroverted salary evidence must be accepted on a preponderance of probabilities in motor accident claims.

On 7 April 2018, Girish Thakuria died after being struck by a Maruti Omni Van allegedly driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 3 at Fancy Bazar, Guwahati.

His widow and two sons filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held the claim maintainable and awarded Rs. 13,75,852.92 with interest at 9% per annum.

In assessing compensation, the Tribunal disregarded the deceased’s salary certificate showing a monthly salary of Rs. 31,150 and instead adopted the minimum wage applicable to an unskilled worker. It also added only 10% towards future prospects.

The claimants appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, primarily challenging the quantum of compensation.

Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the deceased’s salary certificate and assessing his income on the basis of minimum wages for an unskilled worker?

Whether the Tribunal correctly determined the addition towards future prospects at 10%, or whether 15% was required under the applicable legal principles?

What compensation and consequential directions were payable to the claimants?

The Court applied Sections 166 and 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, governing claims for compensation and appeals against awards of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

In a motor accident claim inquiry, the applicable standard is preponderance of probabilities rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt; the Court relied on Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav and Anita Sharma v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. for this principle.

Under National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, where the deceased was between 50 and 60 years of age, 15% of actual income is to be added towards future prospects.

Compensation is to be calculated by determining established income, deducting personal and living expenses, applying the appropriate multiplier, and awarding conventional amounts under the heads of loss of estate, funeral expenses and consortium.

The Court held that the salary certificate, issued by the Joint Director of the Inland Water Transport Department, recorded the deceased’s monthly salary as Rs. 31,150, with a professional-tax deduction of Rs. 208.

Although the certificate was proved through the deceased’s son rather than an official departmental witness, the deceased’s status as a government employee was undisputed, and the evidence of the claimants regarding his salary remained substantially unchallenged in cross-examination.

Applying the preponderance-of-probabilities standard, the Court found no valid basis for substituting minimum wages for the proved salary.

After deducting professional tax, the monthly income was fixed at Rs. 30,942. The Court then added 15% towards future prospects, deducted one-third towards personal expenses, and applied a multiplier of 13, resulting in a loss of dependency of Rs. 37,00,632.

Adding conventional compensation and medical expenses, the total compensation was recalculated at Rs. 41,77,341.

The Court enhanced the total compensation to Rs. 41,77,341 and directed the Insurance Company to pay the balance amount of Rs. 28,01,489, after adjusting the Rs. 13,75,852 already awarded or paid, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization.

No interest was payable on the amount added towards future prospects.

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the enhanced amount before the High Court Registry within six weeks, after which it was to be disbursed to the claimants upon verification.