Fao No. 3984 of 2024 · Punjab And Haryana High Court · 2024

by an affidavit of the counsel for the appellant, the delay of 02 days in re- filing the appeal is hereby condoned. The applica!on stands disposed of. FAO-3984-2024 (O&M) Insurance Company is in this appeal against the Award dated 16.04.2024 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nuh (hereina4er referred as ‘the Tribunal’), whereby compensa!on of ₹20,93,000/- has been granted on account of death of one Maksood S/o Mihra Khan @ Mihra in a motor vehicular accident, which took place on 13.05.2014. Sarita Rani 2024.10.01 03:06 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page no.1 out of 6 pages FAO-3984-2024 (O&M)

2. It is not in dispute that accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of Trolla No.HR-74A-1969, which was being driven by respondent No.11 herein. The said vehicle was owned by respondent No.12 herein and the same was insured by the appellant- company.

3. Neither the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle nor the liability to pay the compensa!on amount are in dispute. The only dispute raised by the Insurance Company is in respect of quantum of compensa!on.

4. The sole conten!on raised by learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company is that deceased was resident of Rajasthan. The accident had taken place in May, 2014 and that at the relevant !me, the minimum wages prevalent in Rajasthan were ₹4,914/- per month for unskilled labour, which was required to be taken into considera!on in the absence of any cogent proof regarding the earning of the deceased, but learned Tribunal has taken into account the income of the deceased to be ₹10,000/- per month without any reasons. Learned counsel has also drawn aCen!on towards the calcula!ons filed by the Insurance Company and submiCed that compensa!on of only ₹10,67,662/- is payable.

5. Caveat was filed on behalf of the claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 10 herein. It is contended by learned counsel for the said respondents-claimants that deceased was working as an Imam in a Mosque. Though the address of the deceased and the claimants is of Rajasthan, but their village Hajipur, Tehsil Ramgarh, District Alwar (Rajasthan) is adjoining to Haryana and as the accident took place within the area of Haryana, therefore, the standard of income as prevalent in Haryana should be taken into considera!on. He also argues that an Imam cannot be equated with an unskilled labour. His further conten!on Sarita Rani 2024.10.01 03:06 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page no.2 out of 6 pages FAO-3984-2024 (O&M) is that there are as many as 10 claimants, who are widowed mother, aged 78 years; widow of deceased Maksood, besides 08 children, but the Tribunal has granted compensa!on under the head of loss of consor!um only to the widow of the deceased and that no compensa!on was awarded for loss of parental and filial consor!um. Learned counsel further argues that merely because the claimants are unable to produce documentary evidence to show the monthly income of the deceased, the same does not jus!fy adop!on of the lowest !er of the minimum wages while compu!ng income. Learned counsel relies upon “Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram & Anr. v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav & Ors.”, 2021(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 492.

6. This Court has considered submissions of both the sides and have appraised the record.

7. It has not been disputed that deceased was working as an Imam in the Mosque. His age as 37 years, is also not disputed. The conten!on of learned counsel for the claimants that as the village of the deceased was adjoining to Haryana and so, standard income in Haryana should have been adopted is without any merit.

8. It is also not disputed that no documentary evidence or any cogent evidence has been produced regarding income of the deceased, except for the oral statement made by one of the claimants- Farmina.

9. As per the appellant-Company, the minimum wages prevalent in Rajasthan were ₹4,914/- per month. Although, no evidence is produced regarding any educa!onal qualifica!on or any other skill of the deceased, but once it is undisputed that deceased was working as an Imam in the Mosque, it will be unreasonable to adopt the lowest !er of minimum wages for compu!ng the income of the deceased.

10. In Chandra’s case (supra), deceased was a Driver on heavy Sarita Rani 2024.10.01 03:06 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page no.3 out of 6 pages FAO-3984-2024 (O&M) vehicle. He was possessing heavy vehicle driving licence. His income was claimed to be ₹15,000/- per month, but no documentary proof was produced in this regard. In these background facts, it was observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court as under:- “---- In absence of salary cer(cid:16)ficate the minimum wage no(cid:16)fica(cid:16)on can be a yards(cid:16)ck but at the same (cid:16)me cannot be an absolute one to fix the income of the deceased. In absence of documentary evidence on record some amount of guesswork is required to be done. But at the same (cid:16)me the guesswork for assessing the income of the deceased should not be totally detached from reality. Merely because claimants were unable to produce documentary evidence to show the monthly income of Shivpal, same does not jus(cid:16)fy adop(cid:16)on of lowest (cid:16)er of minimum wage while compu(cid:16)ng the income. --- ”

11. Similarly, in “Zakir Hussein v. Sabir and others”, 2015(2) RCR (Civil) 141, it has been held by the Apex Court that no!fica!on of minimum wages is only a yard s!ck for assessing income of the person, but it is not an absolute factor to be taken into considera!on, as at !mes, it fails to meet the requirements that are needed to maintain the basic quality of life.

12. In another case !tled “Kubrabibi v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.”, 2023(3) Apex Court Judgments (SC) 23, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in the absence of definite proof of the income, the social status of the deceased is to be kept in perspec!ve, where such persons are employed in unorganized sector. In that case also, the deceased was working as a Driver.

13. Keeping in view the abovesaid legal posi!on and the fact that deceased was an Imam in Mosque in Rajasthan, where the minimum wages for unskilled worker at the relevant !me was ₹4,941/- Sarita Rani 2024.10.01 03:06 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page no.4 out of 6 pages FAO-3984-2024 (O&M) per month, this Court is of the view that though it will be unreasonable to adopt the income at the lowest !er of minimum wages, but at the same !me it cannot be held that deceased was earning an amount ₹10,000/- per month as asserted by the claimants. On the basis of guesswork and considering all the circumstances, the monthly income of the deceased is taken as ₹6,000/- per month.

14. As such, the compensa!on payable to the claimants- respondent Nos.1 to 10 is reworked as under:- Deceased : Maqbool Age : 37 years No. of claimants : 10 Compensa>on awarded (in ₹) Compensa>on assessed by this Court (in ₹)

1. Income Monthly : 10,000/- Monthly : 6,000/- Annual : 1,20,000/- Annual : 72,000/-

2. Deduc!on 1/5 (24,000/-) 1/5 (14,400/-) (1,20,000 – 24,000 = 96,000/- (72,000 – 14,400 = 57,600/-)

3. Future prospects 40% (38,400/-) 40% (23,040/-) (96,000 + 38,400 = 1,34,400/-) (57,600 + 23,040 = 80,640/-)

4. Mul!plier 15 15 5 Loss of dependency 1,34,400 x 15 = 20,10,000/- 80,640 x 15 = 12,09,600/-

5. Loss of Estate

6. Funeral Expenses

7. Loss of consor!um (i) Parental (ii) Filial 16,500/- 16,500/- Nil Nil 18,000/- 18,000/- 48,000/- 48000 x 8 = 3,84,000/- 48,000/- (iii) Spousal 44,000/- Total : (4,80,000/-) Sarita Rani 2024.10.01 03:06 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page no.5 out of 6 pages FAO-3984-2024 (O&M) Total compensa>on 20,93,000/- 17,25,600/- Reduced compensa>on 20,93,000 – 17,25,600 = 3,67,400/- Rate of interest

7.5%

7.5 %

15. As such, present appeal is partly accepted. The Award passed by the Tribunal is hereby modified by reducing the compensa!on amount from ₹20,93,000 to ₹17,25,600. It is held further that claimants shall be en!tled to said amount alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim pe!!on !ll its realiza!on. Rest of the terms of the award shall remain as it is i.e., as per award of the Tribunal. Disposed of. October 01, 2024 Sarita (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No Sarita Rani 2024.10.01 03:06 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page no.6 out of 6 pages