In an appeal for enhancement of compensation claim, the High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Tribunal's award based on minimum wages for a semi-skilled workman due to lack of evidence for the claimed higher income.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 559/2021
----Appellants
Versus
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Gaju Singh Rathore. For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Judgment
02/08/2021
This appeal for enhancement of compensation is directed against the judgment & award dated 26/2/2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (First), Jodhpur, (‘the Tribunal’) whereby, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 9,23,888/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the application i.e. 19/8/2015.
The application for compensation was filed by the claimants inter alia claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.1,34,80,000/on account of untimely death of their son Sher Singh on 18/3/2015.
(2 of 3)
[CMA-559/2021]
The Tribunal assessed the compensation by taking the income of the deceased, who was aged about 20 years, as notional income based on the minimum wages of a semi skilled workman and after adding 40% towards future prospects and deducting 50% towards personal expenses, as the deceased was unmarried, applied the multiplier of 18 and awarded Rs.8,13,888/towards loss of income, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 80,000/- towards filial consortium.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in taking the notional income of the deceased inasmuch as it was claimed that the deceased was taking contract of tube well and involved in agricultural operations and was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month and as such the compensation awarded by the Tribunal deserves to be enhanced.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the judgment of the Tribunal as well as the statement of claimants, which were produced for perusal of the court, wherein, the mother of the deceased only in one line claimed that the deceased used to earn Rs. 20,000/- and in cross examination accepted that she has not filed any material in support of the said claim. As there was no material available on record to support the claim of income of the deceased at Rs. 20,000/- per month, the Tribunal, by taking the minimum wages meant for a semi skilled workman, apparently on account of nature of work in which he was claimed to be engaged, awarded compensation based on the principles laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. : AIR 2017 SC 5157 , which determination made by the Tribunal
(3 of 3)
[CMA-559/2021]
cannot be faulted. In absence of any evidence to support the claim of income at Rs. 20,000/-, the award of compensation, relying on the notional income of the deceased based on the minimum wages is just and proper and the same does not call for any interference. In view of the above, there is no substance in the appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J
32-baweja/-
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.Referred¶21
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. : AIR 2017 SC 5157 · Who else cites this
Chandra Kanwar W/o Shivdan Singh
Shivdan Singh S/o Jethu Singh
Ravindra Singh S/o Poonjraj Singh
Jabbar Singh S/o Vishan Singh
The United India Insurance Company Limited
Arun Bhansali
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
