Unrebutted oral evidence may establish a deceased’s income despite absence of documentary proof.

On 4 January 2015, the deceased, aged 48 years and unmarried, was riding his motorcycle towards Banderdewa when an oil tanker, allegedly driven rashly and negligently, struck the motorcycle from behind and ran over him, causing his instantaneous death.

The tanker was owned by Respondent No.1 and insured with Respondent No.2, New India Assurance Co. Ltd.; the policy and driver’s licence were stated to be valid.

The deceased was claimed to be earning approximately Rs.20,000 per month from a dairy farm, a five-bigha tea garden, and employment as Head Clerk of Banderdewa Junior College.

His mother, unmarried sister, and younger brother filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati.

The Tribunal awarded Rs.6,63,750 by judgment dated 22 May 2019, applying an income of Rs.6,500 per month and deducting 50% towards personal expenses.

The claimants appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement on the grounds that the income had been wrongly assessed, filial consortium had not been awarded, the deduction towards personal expenses was excessive, and interest had been improperly restricted.

Whether the deceased’s monthly income should have been assessed at Rs.20,000, or at a higher amount than the minimum wage adopted by the Tribunal, on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence on record?

Whether the deduction of 50% towards the deceased’s personal and living expenses was legally justified, or whether a one-third deduction should have been applied?

Whether the deceased’s mother was entitled to filial consortium?

Whether the claimants were entitled to interest at an appropriate rate from the date of filing of the claim petition?

The Court applied Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, governing appeals against awards of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

It held that absence of documentary proof of income does not automatically require rejection of credible oral evidence; income may be assessed on the basis of occupation, surrounding circumstances, witness testimony, and the preponderance-of-probabilities standard applicable to motor accident claims.

Relying on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, the Court applied the principles governing future prospects and conventional heads of compensation.

Under Sarla Verma v. DTC, a bachelor’s personal expenses are ordinarily assessed at 50%, but the deduction may be reduced to one-third where a large number of dependent family members exist.

Under Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur, a parent is entitled to filial consortium upon the death of a child.

The Court also relied on Sebati Nath v. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Chandra alias Chanda alias Chandraram v. [respondents] for the proposition that income cannot be fixed mechanically at the lowest minimum wage merely because formal documentary proof is unavailable.

The Court found that the evidence of the deceased’s brother, sister, veterinary doctor, and member of the Small Tea Growers Association consistently established that he operated a dairy farm with four Jersey cows and maintained a tea garden.

Their testimony regarding the deceased’s income was not materially discredited in cross-examination, and the insurer led no rebuttal evidence.

Nevertheless, the Court considered Rs.20,000 per month excessive on the evidence and assessed the deceased’s monthly income at Rs.15,000.

Since the deceased was below 50 years of age, 25% was added towards future prospects, resulting in a monthly income of Rs.18,750.

The Court upheld the 50% deduction because only the mother and unmarried sister could be treated as dependants; the 45-year-old brother was not considered dependent, and the family could not be characterised as a large family contemplated by the exception in Sarla Verma.

Applying the multiplier of 13, the Court calculated the loss of dependency at Rs.14,62,500. It further awarded Rs.40,000 as filial consortium to the mother, along with Rs.15,000 each for funeral expenses and loss of estate.

The Court reassessed the total compensation at Rs.15,32,500, comprising Rs.14,62,500 for loss of dependency, Rs.40,000 for filial consortium, Rs.15,000 for funeral expenses, and Rs.15,000 for loss of estate.

The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced compensation after deducting the Rs.6,63,750 already deposited, together with interest at 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realisation, within six weeks.

The mother and sister were permitted to withdraw the deposited amount after due identification and verification.