IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Merely because claimants were unable to produce documentary evidence to show monthly income of deceased, same does not justify adoption of lowest tier of minimum wage while computing income.
(2) In absence of salary certificate minimum wage notification can be a yardstick but same cannot be an absolute one to fix income of deceased.

JUDGMENT :

R. Subhash Reddy, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Unfortunate parents who lost their son aged about 32 years in the motor vehicle road accident on 27.02.2016, are before this Court claiming enhancement of compensation arising out of an application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

3. The appellants are the parents; 4th respondent is the wife; 5th respondent is the minor son; 6th respondent is the brother; and 7th respondent is the sister of the deceased Shivpal. The appellants and respondent nos.4 to 7 were the applicants in the application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer, Rajasthan (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) claiming compensation of Rs.93,08,000/- with interest @ 15% p.a. The Tribunal by judgment dated 25.11.2017 has awarded the total compensation of Rs.10,99,700/- with interest @ 6% p.a. The appellant-parents alone have filed appeal before the High Court. The High Court by impugned judgment dated 06.07.2018 dismissed the appeal. As such the appellants are before this Court.

4. The deceased Shivpal was employed as driver on the vehicle, i.e., truck trailer bearing No.RJ-06-GA-6576. When he was driving the vehicle on 27.02.2016, within the limits of Adarsh Nagar Police Station, Ajmer, the vehicle – truck trailer bearing no.RJ-14-GD-1156, driven by the 1st respondent; belonging to the 2nd respondent; and insured with the 3rd respondent, came on the wrong side and rammed into the vehicle of the deceased resulting in the accident, as a result of which Shivpal died in the said accident.

5. It was the case of the claimants before the Tribunal that deceased Shivpal was in possession of heavy vehicle driving licence and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Apart from the claim on account of loss of dependency, they also claimed compensation on all other conventional heads. The Tribunal has held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, driven by the 1st respondent. The Tribunal by taking into account the income of the deceased at Rs.5746/- per month has awarded a total compensation of Rs.10,99,700/- inclusive of consortium of Rs.40000/- to the wife and minor child. The Tribunal had merely awarded an amount of Rs.10000/- each to the appellant-parents, of the deceased.

6. We have heard Sri Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Sahil Raveen, learned counsel for respondent no.3.

7. Mainly it is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that though the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, being a heavy vehicle driver, the Tribunal has awarded compensation on account of loss of dependency by taking the income of the deceased at Rs.5746/- per month. It is submitted that wife of the deceased, i.e. respondent no.4 has clearly stated in her deposition that deceased was earning Rs.15000/- per month. It is submitted that inspite of such evidence on record the Tribunal has committed error in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.5746/- as per the minimum wage notified to the skilled labour. Further it is submitted that Tribunal has committed error in recording a finding that the appellants are not dependents as they were living separately. Lastly it is submitted that appellants are also entitled to compensation under the head of ‘loss of consortium’.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent has submitted that in absence of any documentary evidence on record to show the salary of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month the Tribunal has correctly taken into account the monthly earnings of the deceased at Rs.5746/-. By relying on a judgment of this Court in the case of Kirti & Anr. v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2021) 2 SCC 166 , learned counsel has submitted that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court.

9. Having heard the learned counsels on both sides, we have perused the impugned order and other material placed on record. At th