Case at a Glance
A 42-year-old skilled mason died when the bus he was travelling in fell into a ditch in 2008. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Pauri assessed his income at just ₹3,000 a month for want of documents and awarded ₹3,98,000. The Uttarakhand High Court held that the Tribunal erred in rejecting oral evidence merely because documents were absent, fixed income at ₹6,000 a month, added 25% future prospects, and granted consortium of ₹40,000 to each of four claimants. Compensation was enhanced to ₹11,35,000 with 7% interest.
On 27 June 2008 a bus (UP 06 4157) fell into a ditch near village Ameli in Pauri district. One of the passengers, Jayanand, aged 42, died. His widow, children and parents filed MACP No. 54 of 2008, claiming ₹22,50,000 on the basis that he worked as a skilled mason earning ₹10,000 a month, supported by a Gram Pradhan certificate and sworn testimony.
The insurer contested the claim, arguing among other things that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and that the driving licence and vehicle papers were invalid. By award dated 22 October 2011, the MACT/District Judge, Pauri decided the negligence and document issues for the claimants but assessed income at only ₹3,000 a month, awarding ₹3,98,000. The claimants appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The deceased’s father, one of the appellants, died during the appeal on 13 February 2013.
The Key Question Before the Court
Was the Tribunal right to assess a skilled mason’s income at ₹3,000 a month for want of documentary proof, and what are the correct heads of compensation?
Assessing income without documents and awarding consortium
The High Court noted that the insurer had not challenged the findings on negligence, licence and permit, and upheld them. On income, it held that the Tribunal erred by rejecting oral evidence merely because documents were absent. Relying on Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 08 SC CK 0115 and considering Suresh Jatav v. Sukhendra Singh, (2025) 07 SC CK 0192, which the claimants cited, it fixed the deceased’s income at ₹6,000 a month. It retained the multiplier of 14 and the one-fourth deduction for personal expenses, and under paragraph 59.4 of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 10 SC CK 0044 added 25% towards future prospects for a person aged 40–50.
On non-pecuniary heads, the Court relied on Pranay Sethi, Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur, (2020) 06 SC CK 0036 and M.H. Uma Maheshwari v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 06 SC CK 0011 to hold that “apart from spousal consortium, parental and filial consortium is payable”, distinguishing Sangita Arya v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 06 SC CK 0017 Citing Neelam v. Ganga Singh, (2026) 05 SC CK 0466, it awarded ₹40,000 consortium to each of four claimants, plus ₹15,000 each for funeral expenses and loss of estate.
What the Court Actually Held
- A Tribunal should not reject oral evidence of income merely because documentary proof is absent; income of the skilled mason was fixed at ₹6,000 a month.
- Future prospects of 25% apply for a self-employed deceased aged between 40 and 50, under Pranay Sethi.
- Spousal, parental and filial consortium are payable; ₹40,000 was awarded to each of four claimants.
- Compensation was enhanced to ₹11,35,000 (less amounts already paid), payable within two months with 7% simple interest from the date of filing of the claim petition; the widow gets 50%, the two children 25% together and the mother 25%.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Many accident victims in rural and informal work have no salary records; the ruling protects their families from token awards.
- It applies the Supreme Court’s consortium jurisprudence, ensuring parents and children are compensated too.
- It shows how old MACT appeals, pending since 2012, can still yield substantially enhanced awards.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Claimants
- Oral testimony and a Gram Pradhan certificate can support income when documents are unavailable.
- Each dependant — spouse, child and parent — may claim consortium.
- Interest runs from the date of filing the claim, so delays in appeal are partly offset.
For Counsel
- Rely on Ramachandrappa when a Tribunal pegs income at a token figure for want of documents.
- Compute future prospects by age bracket under paragraph 59.4 of Pranay Sethi.
- Cite Satinder Kaur and Neelam v. Ganga Singh for consortium per claimant.
Key Takeaways
- Absence of documents is no reason to reject oral evidence of income.
- Income of skilled mason fixed at ₹6,000 per month (2008 accident).
- ₹40,000 consortium per claimant.
- Award raised from ₹3.98 lakh to ₹11.35 lakh with 7% interest.
Frequently Asked Questions
How is income proved if a deceased worker had no salary slips?
The Court held that oral evidence should not be rejected merely for lack of documents; here a mason’s income was assessed at ₹6,000 a month on the evidence led.
Who can claim consortium in a death case?
Following Pranay Sethi, Magma General and Satinder Kaur, the Court held spousal, parental and filial consortium are payable; four claimants got ₹40,000 each.
What interest was allowed?
7% simple interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, with payment to be made within two months.
Conclusion
Roshni Devi, (2026) 10 UK CK 2513 corrects a common error in MACT awards — treating the absence of income documents as a reason to fix a token income. By applying settled Supreme Court principles on income, future prospects and consortium, the High Court nearly tripled the compensation.
Practical takeaway: Where a deceased worked in the informal sector, lead credible oral and local-authority evidence of income and claim consortium for every dependant.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com