(Pronouncement) v. The date when the judgment was reserved

Per contra, learned counsel representing respondent No.3-Insurance Company, neither refuted the factum of accident nor even the negligence of the offending vehicle, however submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal called for no interference. DISCUSSION AND REASONING [5] Having heard learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and gone through the paper-book, I find substance in the averment(s) made on behalf of the appellants. QUESTION OF INCOME ASSESSED [6] A perusal of the record shows that the deceased was aged about 48 years at the time of accident. Though the claimants asserted that the deceased was working as a Mason earning Rs.25,000/- per month, however, no documentary evidence was brought on record to substantiate the same. Nevertheless, it cannot be lost sight of that the deceased was a skilled labourer/Mason. The Tribunal erred in assessing his income on the basis of minimum wages applicable to an unskilled worker. A Mason is a skilled worker and judicial notice can safely be taken of the fact that a skilled labourer engaged in masonry work earns substantially more than an unskilled worker. Even in absence of documentary evidence, the income is FAO No. 3889 of 2024 (O&M) -4- required to be assessed on the touchstone of ground realities and nature of avocation. [6.1] In this situation observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav & Ors.”, reported as (2022) 1 SCC 198, to the effect that in the absence of proof of income, the minimum wage notification can be a yardstick but at the same time cannot be absolute one to fix the income of the deceased and some guesswork is required to be done to assess the income. Relevant excerpt thereof is reproduced hereunder:- “…….In the absence of salary certificate the minimum wage notification can be a yardstick but at the same time cannot be an absolute one to fix the income of the deceased. In the absence of documentary evidence on record some amount of guesswork is required to be done. But at the same time the guesswork for assessing the income of 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 justify adoption of lowest tier of minimum wage while computing the income. There is no reason to discard the oral evidence of the wife of the deceased who has deposed that late Shivpal was earning around Rs. 15,000/- per month……” [6.2] Keeping in view the nature of work of the deceased as Mason, his age, year of accident i.e. 2021 and overall attending circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to assess the FAO No. 3889 of 2024 (O&M) -5- monthly income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month instead of Rs.9,200/- assessed by the Tribunal. QUESTION OF FUTURE PROSPECTS, MULTIPLIER AND DEDUCTION TOWARDS PERSONAL EXPENSES. [7] The deceased was aged 48 years and thus addition towards future prospects to the extent of 25% is liable to be granted in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi,” reported as 2017 (16) SCC 680. Since the deceased left behind five dependents, deduction towards personal expenses is rightly liable to be assessed at 1/4th in terms of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation,” reported as 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 77, the learned Tribunal committed an error while deducting 1/5th towards personal expenses. The multiplier of ‘13’ applied by the Tribunal is in consonance with law laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) and does not call for interference. QUESTION CONVENTIONAL HEADS OF COMPENSATION UNDER [8] Furthermore, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case (supra), Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) and “United India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur”, reported as (2021) 11 SCC 780, compensation awarded under conventional heads is also required to be assessed accordingly. Appellants/claimants are thus, held FAO No. 3889 of 2024 (O&M) -6- entitled for Rs. 18,000/- as compensation under funeral head and Rs. 18,000/- towards loss of estate. Loss of Consortium is assessed to the tune of Rs. 2,40,000/- (48,000 x 5) as appellants/claimants being the widow and children are entitled to spousal and parental consortium. CONCLUSION [9] In view of the discussion made herein above, the appellants/claimants are held entitled the grant of compensation in the following manner:- S.No. Nature

9. Amount (in Rs.) 1,80,000/- 45,000/- Annual Income of deceased Add 25% future prospects Total Income (Rs. 1,80,000+ Rs. 45,000) 2,25,000/- Deduction (1/4th) Net Income (Rs. 2,25,000 – Rs. 56,250) Loss of Income after applying multiplier of 13 as per the age of 48 years (Rs. 1,68,750 x 13) Loss of Consortium Funeral expenses Loss of estate Total compensation Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Enhanced Amount 56,250/- 1,68,750/- 21,93,750/- 2,40,000/- 18,000/- 18,000/- 24,69,750/- 18,60,424/- 6,09,326/- Accordingly, the appellants/claimants shall be entitled to receive above enhanced compensation proportion already determined by the learned Tribunal. FAO No. 3889 of 2024 (O&M) -7- [10] The grant of interest @ 7.5% per annum is not equitable and just in view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Smt. Supe Dei and others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and other, reported as (2009) (4) SCC 513 approved in a subsequent judgment titled as “Puttamma and others vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and another, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443, thus, the interest is enhanced to 9% per annum on the amount of compensation re- assessed from the date of institution of claim petition till its realization. In case the said amount is not paid within three months, the same shall be payable thereafter along with 12% interest from the expiry of period of three months from today. Needless to mention here that the amount of compensation already paid to the claimant shall be deducted from the enhanced compensation. [11] In view of the foregoing discussion, the present appeal preferred at the instance of appellants-claimants stands allowed. [12] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed off. May 27, 2026 ‘dk kamra’ ( HARKESH MANUJA ) JUDGE Whether Speaking / Reasoned : Whether Reportable : Yes Yes