Where salary is unproved, courts may assess notional income based on occupation and prevailing conditions.

The deceased, aged 24, was struck and fatally injured by a lorry while crossing the Chennai–Bengaluru road on 11 December 2014.

His parents claimed compensation, asserting that he worked as a container-lorry driver and earned ₹45,000 per month.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal found the lorry driver negligent and awarded ₹43,27,500, including ₹43,07,400 for loss of earnings, with interest at 7.5% per annum.

The insurer appealed, not disputing negligence but challenging the monthly income of ₹30,000 fixed by the Tribunal.

Whether the Tribunal was justified in fixing the deceased’s monthly income at ₹30,000 without satisfactory proof of his employment and earnings.

Whether the total compensation of ₹43,27,500 required modification.

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

The Court applied the principles reflected in its assessment that compensation should be based on income supported by satisfactory evidence and should account for future prospects, the appropriate multiplier, and the deceased’s personal expenses.

It applied a 40% addition for future prospects for the deceased, aged 24; multiplier 18; and a 50% deduction for personal and living expenses because he was a bachelor.

It also assessed compensation under conventional heads.

The Court found that the employment certificate had not been satisfactorily proved and that neither the evidence of RW1 nor contemporaneous records established the alleged employment or ₹30,000 monthly salary.

It therefore held the Tribunal’s income assessment unsupported.

Having regard to the deceased’s age, occupation as a container-lorry driver, accident date, and prevailing cost of living, the Court fixed monthly income at ₹20,000.

Adding 40% future prospects produced an annual income of ₹3,36,000; applying multiplier 18 and deducting 50% for personal expenses yielded loss of dependency of ₹30,24,000.

The Court also revised compensation under other heads.

The Court directed the insurer to deposit that sum with interest at 7.5% per annum from the claim-petition filing date until deposit, after crediting any amount already deposited.

The claimants may withdraw the modified award with accrued interest under the Tribunal’s apportionment directions; any excess already deposited may be recovered by the insurer in accordance with law.

The judgment’s discussion states ₹40,000 for loss of love and affection, whereas its table includes ₹80,000 under that head; the table’s figure is reflected in the stated total of ₹31,49,000.