JUDGMENT :

REKHA PALLI, J

1.The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, filed by the insurer, seeks to assail the award dated 10.07.2020 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in Petition no.76000/2016.2.Vide the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of a sum of Rs.6,26,818/- in the following heads

3. As already noted in this Court’s order dated 15.01.2021, the appellant is assailing the quantum of compensation only qua the sum of Rs.1,01,148/-awarded towards loss of income and a sum of Rs.1,55,767/- awarded towards future loss of income.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent was residing in Pilibhit, Uttar Pradesh and therefore the minimum wages payable to a skilled person in Delhi could not have been taken as a yardstick for grant of compensation to him. Furthermore, even the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman in Delhi at the time of accident in December 2015 was only Rs.11,154/- and therefore, the learned Tribunal erred in taking the respondent’s monthly income as Rs. 16,858/-, that too when he had not furnished any proof of his income. He, therefore, submits that the compensation awarded towards loss of income as well as future loss of income be suitably reduced in accordance with the minimum wages applicable to a skilled workman in Uttar Pradesh.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent was a graduate holding a degree of LL.B who had earlier been working with the Food Corporation of India (FCI). After his retirement, the respondent initially worked as an Advocate, whereafter he started working as a property dealer and was earning more than Rs. 30,000/- per month from the said business.

6. By placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Chandaram vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav (2022) 1 SCC 198, he submits that even though taking into account the nature of business which the respondent was carrying out at the time of the accident where he used to receive commission from property deals and was, therefore, not able to file any income tax return, this Court can take judicial notice of the fact that the respondent being a law graduate with a long experience of working at FCI would be earning much more than the monthly wages payable to a non-graduate skilled worker. While admitting that the monthly income of Rs.16,858/- taken into account by the learned tribunal for computing compensation was incorrect, he prays that at least the minimum wages of Rs. 12,142/-, as applicable to a graduate skilled worker working in a clerical capacity be considered for computing the respondent’s loss of income and future loss of income.

7. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I find that both the parties are ad idem that the monthly income of Rs.16,858/- as considered by the learned Tribunal was incorrect as the minimum monthly wages of a skilled workman in Delhi at the time of accident was only Rs.11,154/-, while that of a skilled graduate worker performing clerical duties was Rs.12,142/-. Even though during arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the respondent was residing at Pilibhit in Uttar Pradesh, a perusal of his cross examination before the learned Tribunal shows that his assertion, that he was residing at Sultanpur in Delhi at the time of the accident was not seriously disputed.

8. Coming to the respondent’s plea that his monthly income should be treated as Rs. 12,142/-, I find that while it is correct that the respondent did not file any proof of his monthly income being Rs. 3