The assessment of compensation for fatal accidents should be based on positive evidence of the deceased's income, and reliance on statutory provisions like the Minimum Wages Act should be justified.

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant - claimants are aggrieved by the order dated 24.09.2019 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh whereby the compensation of Rs.43,75,000/-, awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (for short, 'the Tribunal'), has been substantially reduced to Rs.16,57,600/-.

3. The deceased - Pyara Singh was the husband of appellant No.1, father of appellant Nos.2 to 3 i.e. the minor children, and son of appellant Nos.4 to 5 i.e. his mother and father.

4. On 12.11.2014, when Pyara Singh was driving his motorcycle bearing No.PB-39E-2372 along with his friend Mukhtiar Singh (pillion rider), a JCB bearing registration No.HR-45A-1630, driven by respondent No.2 - Sanjay came from the opposite side of the road and crashed into the motorcycle. As a result of the accident, Pyara Singh sustained multiple injuries which led to his instant death. His friend Mukhtiar Singh was also severely injured.

5. It is not in dispute that the deceased was 25 years' old and was hale and hearty. He was stated to be working as a contractor for lifting of earth and was earning Rs.50,000/- per month. It has also come on record that the deceased had purchased a Tractor bearing registration No.HR-05-AL-3294 for which he had taken a loan of Rs.3,90,533/- from Kotak Mahindra Bank. The deceased was regularly paying the monthly instalment of Rs.11,550/- towards the tractor's loan from 10.03.2014 onwards and the entire loan liability was discharged by 24.03.2015 with payment being made even after his death.

6. Keeping in mind the rate at which EMI was being paid, the Tribunal held that the deceased must be earning at least Rs.25,000/- per month prior to his death in the accident. After taking 1/4th of monthly income of the deceased towards personal expenses, the Tribunal applied multiplier of 18 and assessed the total compensation as Rs.43,75,000/-. The High Court, unfortunately, overlooked the factors relied upon by the Tribunal to assess the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.25,000/- per month. The High Court came to the conclusion that the mere fact that the deceased had paid instalments of the loan could not itself be an evidence that the money actually represented his income or can form the basis for assessment of income of the deceased at Rs.25,000/- per month. Taking into consideration the Notification issued by the State of Haryana, fixing minimum wage at the relevant time, the High Court assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month, and on this premise, as stated above, the compensation was reduced.

7. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and carefully perused the material placed on record.

8. Though, there is no evidence on record regarding the income of deceased Pyara Singh, however, from the testimony of P.W.4 - Amar Kumar, Assistant Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, it is clear that the deceased - Pyara Singh was regularly making the payment of Rs.11,550/- as instalment to discharge his loan liability towards the tractor. At this rate, the entire loan was paid back within a year or so. That clearly establishes the earning capacity of the deceased. It is also the case of the appellants-claimants that the deceased was working as a contractor and was earning Rs.50,000/- per month. The Tribunal adopted a balanced approach and keeping in view factors like : (i) the payment of monthly instalment of Rs.11,550/- towards loan of the tractor; (ii) Maintaining a family comprising of wife, two minor children and parents; (iii) Affording tractor and motorcycle; (iv) that the deceased was working as a contractor; assessed his income at Rs.25,000/- per month.

9. In our considered view, the Tribunal's approach is quite justified in law as well as on facts. In the summary proceedings where the approach of the Tribunal's determination must be in conformity with the object of the welfare legislation, it was rightly held that the monthly income of the deceased cou