Mr. Navin Kumar Jha, Advocate v. NETRAPAL ORS

Judgment

1. The appellants are the parents of one Asraf @ Babloo, who succumbed to injuries sustained in a road accident that occurred on the intervening night of 30/31.08.2014. By way of the present appeal, they seek enhancement of the compensation awarded to them by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [“the Tribunal”] in MACP. No. 77039/2016 titled “Mohd. Saffar & Ors. vs. Netrapal & Ors”, vide award dated

31.10.2018.

The facts of the case, as recorded in the impugned award, indicate that the deceased, aged approximately 19 years at the time, was travelling as a helper in a truck bearing registration No. HR-55P-1645 [“the first truck”]. At about 3:20 AM, the said truck collided with another truck bearing registration No. HR-38H-6491 [“the second truck”] at Hirankudna Mor, Mundka, Delhi, resulting in the deceased sustaining Signature Not Verified Signed By:PARUL VASHIST Signing Date:28.11.2025 19:53:15 MAC.APP. 428/2019 Page 1 of 6 fatal injuries.

3. The appellants [claimants before the Tribunal] instituted proceedings before the Tribunal against the driver, owner and insurer of the second truck, alleging rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver.

4. By the impugned award, the Tribunal held that the drivers of both trucks involved in the accident were driving rashly and negligently. Recording a finding of composite negligence, the Tribunal observed that the appellants herein were entitled to recover compensation from either of the tortfeasors and, accordingly, fastened liability upon respondent No. 3 – United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [“the Insurance Company”], i.e. the insurer of the second truck.

5. The appellants seek enhancement of compensation on the limited ground that the Tribunal has erroneously assessed the loss of dependency by applying minimum wages prevalent the State of Bihar, notwithstanding the deceased’s residence and employment in Delhi.

6. I have heard Mr. Navin Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the appellants, and Mr. Sankar N. Sinha, learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

7. Before the Tribunal, evidence was led by appellant No. 1, i.e. the father of the deceased [“PW-1”], to the following effect: “5. That my deceased son Asraf @ Babloo was employed as Helper with Satkar Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Admn. Office D-193, 1st Floor, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110020 on its Truck bearing registration No. HR-55P-1645 and thereby he was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.9,000/- per month plus perks.”1 1 Emphasis supplied. Signature Not Verified Signed By:PARUL VASHIST Signing Date:28.11.2025 19:53:15 MAC.APP. 428/2019 Page 2 of 6 PW-1 was thereafter cross-examined by learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company as follows: “It is correct that my son Asraf was illiterate. It is correct that at the time of accident, I was in my native village in Bihar. It is correct that I am not an eye witness of the accident. I have three male children including the deceased Mohd. Asraf. The two male children are major and already married. My deceased son was residing in Delhi. I do not know where he was living exactly. I do not own any house in Delhi. I do not have any document to show that my son was employed as helper. It is wrong-to suggest that my son was not employed as a helper in truck no. HR 55 P 1645. It is wrong to suggest that my son was not earning Rs. 9,000/- per month. It is wrong to suggest that I have filed an exaggerated claim.”2

8. A second witness, namely the driver of the first truck [“PW-2”], also deposed before the Tribunal, stating that he was employed as a driver with Satkar Logistics Pvt. Ltd., and that on the night of the accident, he was driving the truck in which the deceased was engaged as his helper. The cross-examination of PW-2 does not reveal any suggestion disputing the deceased’s engagement as a helper with Satkar Logistics Pvt. Ltd. on the said vehicle.

9. In the Detailed Accident Report [“DAR”] and other documents placed before the Tribunal, it stands admitted that the first truck was owned by “Satkar Logistics Pvt. Ltd.”, having its office in Delhi.

10. The Tribunal, however, computed the compensation by applying the minimum wages notified for the State of Bihar (Rs. 4,784/- per month), on the following reasoning: “Income of the deceased.

24. PW1/Mohd.Saffar testified that his deceased son was employed with Satkar Logistics Pvt.Ltd. at Delhi as a Helper of truck and 2 Emphasis supplied. Signature Not Verified Signed By:PARUL VASHIST Signing Date:28.11.2025 19:53:15 MAC.APP. 428/2019 Page 3 of 6 earning Rs.9,000/- per month along with perks. However, no document regarding his monthly income, vocation at Delhi or educational qualification was placed on record. Hence, in absence of any documentary evidence qua his educational qualification or earning , deceased Asraf @ Babloo is considered as unskilled worker and his income is assessed as Rs.4,784/- as per Minimum Wages prevailing in Bihar at the time of accident.”3

11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the approach adopted by the Tribunal is erroneous. While the Tribunal correctly observed that the exact quantum of his salary could not be established in the absence of documentary evidence, I am of the opinion that the unrebutted oral testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 was sufficient to demonstrate that the deceased was working in Delhi. It is not in dispute that the deceased’s family was from Bihar. However, the evidence was that, at the time of the accident, he was 19 years old and employed as a helper in a truck with a Delhi-based company.

12. The Tribunal was not bound by the strict rules of pleadings or evidence when assessing the place of his employment and was required to adjudicate the matter on the basis of the preponderance of probabilities4. Its conclusion, based on the fact that no documentary evidence was produced regarding the deceased’s employment in Delhi, was in my view, erroneous. In the case of a young person employed as a helper in a truck, the insistence on documentary proof of employment in Delhi was neither necessary in law, nor viable for the purpose of assessing loss of dependency. Significantly, in the present case, the