The Bombay High Court enhanced motor accident compensation from ₹10 lakhs to ₹1.31 crore, holding that an unsigned employment contract may be considered when supported by credible oral and surrounding evidence.
Background Of The Case
The Bombay High Court has enhanced compensation in a motor accident claim from ₹10 lakhs to ₹1,31,95,000.
Justice Jitendra Jain held that courts can consider an unsigned employment contract while assessing notional income. However, reliable evidence must support the document.
The Court said a tribunal cannot reject such a document only because the deceased did not sign it. Instead, courts must examine the surrounding facts and oral evidence.
Claimants Challenged Tribunal’s Income Assessment
The claimants filed an appeal seeking enhancement of compensation granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
The Tribunal had assessed the deceased’s notional income at only ₹8,000 per month. Based on this finding, it awarded compensation of ₹10 lakhs.
However, the claimants argued that the deceased had much higher earning capacity. They pointed out that he was a qualified maritime engineer with nearly 20 years of experience.
The deceased died in a road accident while travelling for professional work.
Employment Offer Showed Monthly Compensation Of ₹1.59 Lakh
The claimants relied on an employment offer issued by M/s Samson Maritime Limited.
The offer showed monthly compensation of ₹1,59,932.
The Court noted that the employer’s representative entered the witness box. He confirmed the employment arrangement.
Moreover, the Court considered one important fact. At the time of the accident, the deceased was travelling for work connected with the same company.
Unsigned Contract Cannot Be Rejected When Evidence Supports It
The High Court held that the Tribunal should not have rejected the employment document merely because it lacked the deceased’s signature.
The Court said oral testimony and surrounding circumstances supported the document.
The Court observed that the accident occurred while the deceased was travelling for M/s Samson Maritime Limited to Paradeep Port. Therefore, the Tribunal should have considered the employment offer while fixing fair notional income.
The Court further said that even if no concluded contract existed, the document still had evidentiary value. It could help the Tribunal arrive at a just and fair estimate of income.
Court Relies On Maritime Experience And Prior Earnings
The Court also considered the deceased’s previous earnings.
Shortly before the accident, he had earned ₹2.5 lakhs for a 40-day assignment with another maritime company.
In addition, the Court considered his qualifications, experience, and the nature of work in the maritime industry.
Therefore, the Court found that the Tribunal’s income assessment was unrealistic.
Tribunal’s ₹8,000 Monthly Income Finding Rejected
The High Court rejected the Tribunal’s finding that the deceased earned only ₹8,000 per month.
Instead, the Court fixed his notional income at ₹1,25,000 per month.
The Court reached this figure after balancing all relevant factors. These included his experience, prior earnings, industry background, and contractual nature of employment.
Compensation Recalculated At ₹1.31 Crore
After accounting for future prospects, personal expenses, and tax liability, the High Court recalculated the compensation.
The Court enhanced the total compensation to ₹1,31,95,000.
Accordingly, it increased the award from ₹10 lakhs to ₹1,31,95,000, along with interest.
The Court also directed the insurer to deposit the enhanced amount within the stipulated time.
Case Details
Case Title: Dr. Dhanashri Rajesh Deshmukh & Ors. v. Saroj Kumar Behera & Anr.
Case Number: First Appeal No. 670 of 2015
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 224
Court: Bombay High Court
Judge: Justice Jitendra Jain
