IMPORTANT POINT
The income of the deceased should be assessed based on the income proved, not on minimum wages for an unskilled worker.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the Award dated 29.10.2018 (hereinafter referred to as the `Impugned Award') passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-02 (West-District), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the `Tribunal') in Claim Petition no. 76800/2016, titled Smt. Usha & Ors. v. Bishan Singh & Ors..

2. It was the case of the claimants that on 08.12.2016, the deceased- Sh.Ved Prakash along with Mr.Amit Aggarwal, Ms.Isha Aggarwal, wife of Mr.Amit Aggarwal, and Ms. Dharvi, daughter of Mr.Amit Aggarwal and Ms.Isha Aggarwal, were returning to Delhi from Jammu in a car bearing registration No.DL-8CW-8512 being driven by the deceased-Sh.Ved Prakash. Mr.Dhanraj Aggarwal, uncle of Mr.Amit Aggarwal, was following them in another car bearing registration No.DL-10CD-7937. At about 11.50 p.m. the car driven by the deceased hit a truck bearing registration No.HR-37C-9870 (hereinafter referred to as the `Offending Vehicle') which was parked in the middle of the road at Main GT Highway, Alluna, and could not be seen by deceased. Consequently, the deceased succumbed to his injuries on 11.12.2013.

3. The limited grievance of the appellants against the Impugned Award is on two accounts:

a. That the learned Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Minimum Wages for an `unskilled worker'; and

b. That the learned Tribunal has failed to award the loss of consortium in favour of all the claimants

INCOME

4. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased was working as a driver. Even if the statement of Mr.Bijender (PW-2), who was the owner of the vehicle in which the deceased was travelling at the time of the accident, is to be disbelieved on the salary he was paying to the deceased, at least minimum wages for a `skilled worker' should have been taken into account.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent no.3 submits that the statement of PW-2, who claims to be the employer of the deceased, has rightly been discarded by the learned Tribunal. She submits that there were various inconsistencies in his statement which showed that he could not have employed the deceased as a driver.

6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

7. The FIR in relation to the accident was registered on the statement of Mr.Dhanraj Aggarwal, uncle of Mr.Amit Aggarwal, on the very next date of the accident. He stated that the deceased was the one who was driving the car which had met with the accident. It was proved that the car is owned by PW-2

8. PW-2 in his Evidence by way of Affidavit had stated that he had employed the deceased as a driver at a salary of Rs.10,000/- per month to pick-up and drop his children to their school, and also to take him to his native village in Haryana to see his ailing father and to look after the agricultural land.

9. The wife of the deceased, that is appellant no.1, had appeared as PW-1 in support of the claim petition, and had proved that the deceased was holding a valid driving licence as on the date of the accident. She had also deposed that the deceased was working with Mr.Bijender at the time of the accident and drawing a salary of Rs.10,000/- per month.

10. The learned Tribunal has disbelieved that the deceased was working as a driver with Mr.Bijender and drawing a salary of Rs.10,000/- per month, by observing as under:

"25. In his cross-examination by respondent No.3/Insurance Company, PW2/Bijender testified that he was working as a Fire Operator in Delhi Fire Service and earning Rs.36,000/- only per month. He also testified that his wife was a housewife and doing petty job of stitching and earning about Rs.2,000- 2,500/- per month. In his further cross- examination, he stated that his children were studying in St.Angel Public School situated in Rohini and that conveyance was provided to his children from the school, however, he did not avail the same. He also test