PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. On 24.10.1996, deceased Rajinder Prasad, aged 28 years died when the TSR bearing registration No.DL-IL-8661 which was being driven by him met with an accident. He was survived by wife, 2 children and mother.

2. It was pleaded by the dependents of the deceased that deceased was employed as a driver with respondent No.5, Ashok Kumar Dureja, (owner of the vehicle) and that he died during the course of his employment. Thus, they filed a claim petition under Section 140 read with 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988 claiming a compensation from the owner and insurer of the vehicle.

3. As it was proved that accident in question was caused due to the overturning of the vehicle driven by the deceased and no other vehicle was involved in the accident, learned Tribunal treated claim petition filed by the dependents as one filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

4. Wife of the deceased, Rajwati Devi stepped into the witness box as PW-3 and deposed that deceased was employed as a driver earning Rs.3000/- per month at the time of the accident.

5. Relying upon the testimony of the wife of the deceased, learned Tribunal has taken income of the deceased at the time of the accident as Rs.3000/- per month.

6. Giving benefit of future increase in the income of the deceased, mean monthly income of the deceased has been taken by the Tribunal as Rs.4500/-per month. Deducting 1/3rd towards personal spending of the deceased, average monthly dependence has been assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.3000/- per month. Deceased was aged 28 years at the time of the accident. Thus, as per IInd Schedule, multiplier of 18 has been adopted by the Tribunal. Thus, total loss of dependence has been assessed at Rs.6,48,000/-.

7. Under the head non-pecuniary damages, Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/-. Thus, total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.6,63,000/-.

8. Aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to dependents/respondents 1 to 4, insurance company has filed the present appeal.

9. Learned counsel for the insurance company had raised 2 contentions in support of his appeal.

10. The first ground urged by the insurance company is that while determining monthly income of the deceased at the time of the accident, learned Tribunal erred in relying upon the testimony of the wife of the deceased when there was no evidence on record to prove the income of the deceased.

11. I agree with the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the insurance company. In absence of clear and cogent evidence pertaining to income of the deceased, learned Tribunal should have determined income of the deceased on the basis of minimum wages notified under the Minimum Wages Act. As the deceased was employed as a driver, I place him in the category of skilled labourers. Minimum wages for skilled labourers as on 1.2.1996 was Rs.2,101/- per month. (rounded off to Rs.2100/- per month). I adopt this figure as the monthly income of the deceased at the time of the accident.

12. Learned counsel for the insurance company next submits that while determining loss of dependence, Tribunal erred in giving benefits of future increase in the income of the deceased. Counsel further contends that as the Tribunal has treated claim petition as one filed under Section 163-A, compensation had to be computed strictly in accordance with IInd Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

13. I agree with the learned counsel for the appellant inasmuch as the Tribunal ought to have determined compensation strictly in accordance with IInd Schedule as it has treated the petition as one filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

14. However, it is pertinent to note clause 3 of Section 163-A. Clause 3 of Section 163-A reads as under :- “(3) The Central Government may, keeping in view the cost of living by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time amend the Second Schedule.”

15. IInd Schedule was appended

Click Here to Read the rest of this document