The court established that evidence of income can be validated through oral testimonies despite lacking formal documentation, and defined functional disability as critical for compensation in personal injury claims.

ORDER :

SANJEET PUROHIT, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded vide judgment/award dated 06.09.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, First Jodhpur Metropolitan (“learned Tribunal”) in MAC Case No. 37/2013, (NCV No. 1489/14). By the award in question, a sum of Rs.10,47,442/- was awarded in favour of the claimant with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition.

BRIEF FACTS

2. The brief facts as pleaded in the claim petition are that on 21.01.2013, claimant- a truck driver holding a valid heavy-vehicle driving license met with an accident and sustained grievous injuries. During treatment, his right leg was amputated. Consequently, a claim petition was filed before the learned Tribunal claiming total compensation to the tune of Rs.64,90,000/-.

3. During the course of evidence, permanent disability certificate, showing disability percentage of 80% was placed on record. For establishing the income, claimant (A.W. 1) deposed that his monthly income was Rs.15,000/- per month and in support, the employer Mr. Ramswaroop (A.W. 2) also tendered his testimony stating that the claimant was working as a truck driver and was receiving monthly salary of Rs.15,000/.

4. The learned tribunal did not accept the evidence adduced by claimant relating to monthly income on the ground that the same was not supported by documentary evidence and took into account minimum wages to the tune of Rs.4342/- for calculating the quantum of compensation and also, admitted only 80% disability of the claimant. Consequently, tribunal vide award dated 06.09.2018 held that claimant is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.10,47,442/- breakup of which is as follows:

5. The appellant while accepting the compensation as awarded by learned Tribunal under other conventional heads has only challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under heads of loss of future earning capacity and simple injury.

ARGUMENTS OF RIVAL PARTIES

6. Learned counsel for appellant-claimant contended that the Tribunal erred in assessing the claimant’s income at Rs. 4,342/- per month, despite uncontroverted evidence on record, including the testimony of the employer Mr. Ramswaroop (A.W.2), who categorically stated that the claimant was employed as a driver and was having monthly salary of Rs.15,000/-. In the absence of any rebuttal to this evidence, the Tribunal was not justified in discarding the same, and resorting to minimum wages for determination of income. He further submitted that the refusal to accept the oral evidence merely in absence of documentary proof is against the settled position of law. The counsel for the appellant placed reliance on Chandra v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav , (2022) 1 SCC 198. Learned counsel for appellant also contended admittedly that claimant was working as a truck driver and thus, the claim that he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month was wholly justified.

7. With regard to the assessment of permanent disability, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the claimant, being a heavy vehicle driver, requires full use of both legs to perform his duties. In view of the amputation of his right leg resulting in complete function