Unrebutted official salary evidence supports the Tribunal’s income assessment in a motor-accident claim.

The claimants sought compensation for the death of Dhammas, a Railway Department peon, in a collision between his two-wheeler and a lorry insured by the appellant; his wife, Savariyammal, was also injured.

The Tribunal found the lorry driver negligent and awarded Rs.26,16,639, including Rs.23,20,749 for loss of dependency, with interest at 7.5% per annum.

The insurer appealed, challenging the quantum but not the finding of negligence.

1. Whether the Tribunal’s award of Rs.26,16,639 was unsupported by the evidence or excessive, warranting interference on appeal.

2. Whether the finding of negligence could be reconsidered when the insurer had not challenged it.

The appeal was brought under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Court treated the scope of the appeal as limited to the grounds actually raised: because the insurer had not challenged the negligence finding, that finding was not open for reconsideration in this appeal.

In assessing compensation, the Court relied on the evidence of employment and salary, including departmental records and the testimony of the relevant witness, and considered whether the Tribunal’s calculation was supported by the record.

No precedent or further statutory test was cited in the judgment.

The Court confined its review to quantum because negligence had not been challenged; it also noted that the Tribunal had considered negligence in the connected claim arising from the same accident.

On quantum, the deceased’s monthly salary of Rs.31,143 was supported by the departmental witness and records, and the insurer produced no contrary evidence.

The Court accepted the Tribunal’s calculation, which added 15% to the monthly income and applied a two-thirds dependency fraction and multiplier of nine, and found no basis to regard the award as excessive or contrary to the evidence.

It directed the insurer to deposit the award, accrued interest at 7.5% per annum and costs, after crediting any amount already deposited, within eight weeks; the claimants may withdraw their respective shares according to the Tribunal’s apportionment.

No order as to costs was made in the appeal, and any connected miscellaneous petition was closed.