'Absence Of Documentary Proof No Grounds To Deny Just Compensation In Accident Cases': P&H High Court Enhances Amount From ₹95K To 7 Lakh

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that mere absence of documentary proof of income cannot be a ground to deny just compensation to an injured claimant in a motor accident case. The Court observed that compensation must be assessed on a reasonable basis rather than denied for want of strict proof.Justice Harkesh Manuja was hearing an appeal filed by the injured claimant challenging the award of ₹95,000/- passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon, seeking enhancement of compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicular accident dated 22.11.2005 caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The claimant contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was grossly inadequate in view of the nature of injuries suffered. It was submitted that the Tribunal failed to properly assess loss of income, future earning capacity and other heads of compensation.The Court noted that the claimant was about 40 years of age and had stated that he was working as a labourer earning ₹3,000/- per month, though no documentary evidence was produced. However, it found that the record clearly established that the claimant had sustained grievous injuries, remained hospitalised for multiple days across different hospitals, and was incapacitated for a considerable period.The Court held that the absence of documentary proof could not be a ground to deny compensation for loss of income, particularly when the injuries and treatment period demonstrated loss of earning capacity. It assessed the monthly income of the claimant at ₹4,000/-, considering prevailing conditions and material on record. It observed:“… mere absence of documentary proof cannot be a ground to deny just compensation, particularly when the nature of injuries and period of treatment clearly indicate loss of income. Furthermore, the nature of proceedings in Motor Accident Claims, being summary in nature, evidence in nature, evidence in stricto sensu is not required.”The Court further examined medical evidence, including testimony of doctors and discharge summaries. It also took note of the disability certificate showing 25% permanent disability due to restriction in movement of the left shoulder. Considering the nature of the claimant's work, it assessed functional disability at 20% for the purpose of computing future loss of income.The Court also found that the Tribunal had erred in restricting medical expenses merely on account of minor discrepancies in the bills, despite evidence of treatment and expenditure established on record, and accordingly enhanced compensation under that head. The Court further enhanced compensation under the heads of pain and suffering, as well as other pecuniary heads.Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal and enhanced the total compensation from ₹95,000/- to ₹7,72,135/- along with interest at 9% per annum, with a higher rate applicable in case of delay in payment.Case Title: Alam v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. [FAO No. 4610 of 2008 (O&M)]Click Here To Read/Download Order

'Absence Of Documentary Proof No Grounds To Deny Just Compensation In Accident Cases': P&H High Court Enhances Amount From ₹95K To 7 Lakh

Saksham Vaishya

Tags