MAMTA vs NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. .

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in concluding that no evidence was adduced by the claimants regarding the income of the deceased, Radheyshyam Sharma. The Court emphasized that oral evidence is valid under Section 59 of the Evidence Act and that the respondent failed to cross-examine the witnesses, which could have led to further documentary evidence. The Court upheld the use of a multiplier of 17 for calculating compensation, awarding the claimants Rs. 6,62,880/- plus interest, while affirming the High Court's decision to limit medical expenses to Rs. 40,000/- due to lack of proof.