The Supreme Court has increased the compensation in a motor accident case, stating that the victim’s wife’s testimony can be used to prove income when there is no evidence to challenge her oral statement.

The Supreme Court awarded over Rs 37 lakh in compensation for a road accident, setting the victim’s monthly income at Rs 10,000 based on his wife’s testimony. The appeal was against a Karnataka High Court decision, arguing that the victim’s salary should have been considered Rs 10,000 per month. Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra stated, “In the absence of evidence to challenge the oral testimony of the victim’s wife, we find it right to set the monthly income of the Claimant-Appellant at Rs 10,000.”

AOR Shankar Divate represented the Petitioner, while AOR Rajeev Maheshwaranand Roy represented the Respondent. The driver of the negligent goods vehicle hit the Claimant-Appellant, who was 27 years old and riding his motorcycle. After the accident, the Claimant-Appellant suffered injuries and spent two months in the hospital, unable to move. He sought Rs 30 lakh in compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, claiming he earned over Rs 10,000 monthly as a Goundy and was the family’s sole provider. Following the accident, he could not work due to physical and mental distress. The Tribunal ordered the Insurance Company to pay Rs 6,78,000 plus interest, calculating his monthly income at Rs 7,500 and permanent disability at 20%. On appeal, the High Court increased the compensation by Rs 18,90,938 and raised the disability percentage to 100%. Unhappy with this, the Claimant-Appellant took the case to the Supreme Court, insisting his salary should be set at Rs 10,000 per month.

The Bench did not agree with the Tribunal and High Court’s opinion on the Appellant’s income. The Bench noted, “In Chandra v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav, this Court relied on the statement of the deceased’s wife to determine the person’s income.” Since there was no evidence to contradict the oral testimony of PW1, the wife, the Bench set the Claimant-Appellant’s monthly income at Rs.10,000. As a result, the compensation was increased to Rs.37,51,000, and the Civil Appeal was granted.

Cause Title: Nur Ahamad Abdulsab Kanavi v. Abdul Munaf & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 191)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Shankar Divate
Respondent: AOR Rajeev Maheshwaranand Roy, Advocates Rajeev Kumar Panday, P Srinivasan