As per case facts, an accident led to the death of Sh. Davender Kumar, who was hit by a bus while cycling. An FIR was filed, and subsequently, a chargesheet ... was submitted. His legal representatives filed a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, and the Tribunal awarded compensation, assessing the deceased's income based on oral testimony from his wife and employer, despite the absence of documentary proof. The insurance company appealed this award, contesting the income assessment and arguing for the application of minimum wages, as well as challenging the interest rate. The question arose whether the Tribunal was justified in relying solely on oral evidence for income assessment in the informal sector, or if minimum wages should have been the benchmark, and whether the awarded interest rate was appropriate. Finally, the Supreme Court, referencing multiple precedents, affirmed that in cases involving the informal/unorganized sector where documentary evidence is scarce, oral testimony can be credibly relied upon for income assessment. It reiterated that strict rules of evidence do not apply in compensation cases under the Motor Vehicles Act, emphasizing a 'just and fair' compensation approach over a rigid application of minimum wages. The Court upheld the Tribunal's pragmatic and legally sound approach, dismissing the appeal and validating the reliance on oral evidence for income determination.