ORDER :

Time taken for disposal of the claim petition Time taken for disposal of appeal by the High Court Time taken for disposal of the appeal in this Court

Approx. 5 years 8 months Approx. 9 months 1 year 6 months

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14th December, 2022 in the First Appeal from Orders No.648 of 2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which in turn was preferred against the judgment and order dated 26th August, 2021 passed in Claim Petition No. 370/2016 by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Firozabad.

3. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 6th January, 2016, the deceased, namely Jaspal Singh, aged 44 years, was standing on the left side of the footpath, 200 meters behind the Kisrao intersection on Sirsaganj Mainpuri Road, waiting for a vehicle to go Sikohabad. The offending vehicle, bearing registration number UP-83J-6579, collided with the deceased in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in his death on the spot. In connection with this accident, an FIR No.49 dated 19th January, 2016 was registered under Sections 279 and 304A of the INDIAN PENAL CODE against Respondent No. 3, namely Arjun Singh.

4. The Appellants (dependents of the deceased) filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.31,00,000/- along with 18% interest, submitting therein that the deceased was the only earning member of the family, working as agriculturist; a driver by profession; and earning up to Rs.15,000/- per month.

5. The Tribunal, by its Order dated 26th August, 2016 awarded the Appellants an amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- along with interest 6% per annum, taking the notional income of the deceased as Rs. 4,500/- per month. Being aggrieved with the amount of compensation awarded, the Claimant-Appellant filed an appeal before the High Court on the ground that the Tribunal has incorrectly assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs .4,500/-, whereas the income of an employee in a private company, in the year 2016, was not less than Rs. 6,000/-.

6. The High Court vide the impugned order dated 14th December, 2022 partially allowed the appeal, accepting the contention of the Appellants by reassessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month. This was based on the decision rendered by this court in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram , (2018) 18 SCC 130 . The High Court further directed the Tribunal to recalculate the compensation based on the revised income of Rs.6,000/- per month.

7. Dissatisfied with the order of re-calculation issued by the Tribunal, the Claimant-Appellant is now before us. The significant point of the challenge taken are that the Courts below have erred in computing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/-, whereas, according to the revised minimum wage rate for 2016, the prescribed wages for a person working as a 'Driver' were Rs.364/- per day or, say Rs. 10,920/- per month.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

9. We are unable to agree with the view taken by the Tribunal and High Court on the income of the deceased. Adverting to the facts at hand, on perusal of the Notification issued by the Ministry of Labour and Employment dated 19th January 2017, annexed at Annexure P2, the minimum wages fixed for the Skilled worker working as a 'Driver' were Rs.364/- per day, amounting to Rs.10,920/- per month.

10. Also, the High Court ought to have reworked the compensation itself rather than remitting the matter to the Tribunal for the compensation to be recomputed, thus pushing the claimants to further litigation.

11. In view of the aforesaid, the compensation now payable to the Claimant-A