The assessment of compensation for loss of dependency should be based on minimum wages applicable, and non-pecuniary damages are governed by established precedents, requiring consistency in awards.

JUDGMENT

Gaurang Kanth, J. The Appellant has challenged the Award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby compensation of Rs.23,57,304/- has been awarded to the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5.

2. The accident dated 10.07.2012 resulted in the death of Sh. Sarwar. He was 24 years of age. It is the case of the respondents that the deceased was working as Driver (HTV) with M/s Yadav Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month (Rs.10,000/- as salary and Rs.5,000/- towards food and other allowances). The deceased was survived by his widow, 2 minor daughters, mother and father. All the legal heirs together filed claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

3. The Claims Tribunal treated the deceased as a matriculate labour and fixed his income for the purpose of loss of dependency as Rs.8,528/- based on the rates of Minimum Wages as applicable to Delhi. Based on the legal principle as explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh & Ors. Vs Rajvir Singh, SLP(C) No.24825/2010, the monthly income of the deceased was fixed as Rs.12,792/-. Further based on the Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. DTC, reported as 2009 (6) SCC 121, the monthly dependency was assessed as Rs.9,594/- per month and loss of dependency was calculated as Rs.20,72,304/-. In addition, the learned Tribunal has granted Rs.25,000/- towards the funeral charges and Rs.10,000/- towards the loss of Estate. Respondent No. 1 was granted Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium. Regarding the Non-pecuniary Losses, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.1,00,000/- for all the Respondents towards loss of love and affection and Rs.50,000/- towards notional loss of care, attention and expenses. The total amount awarded comes to Rs.23,57,304/-. The learned Tribunal also awarded 9% interest from the date of filing of the DAR till the date of realisation.

4. The learned counsel for the Appellant challenged the impugned Award majorly on the following grounds:

(i) Learned Tribunal erred in taking the minimum Wages of Delhi as base for calculating the income of the deceased as the deceased was employed with M/s Yadav Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. located at Ghaziabad, UP. Hence Minimum Wages as applicable to the State of UP at the relevant point in time should be taken for calculating the income of the deceased.

(ii) The learned Tribunal has erred in granting 50% towards future prospects as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported as 2017 AIR (SC) 5157 held that in case the deceased was self employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be granted where the deceased was below the age of 40 years.

(iii) Non-pecuniary compensation granted by the learned Tribunal is contrary to the dicta of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) as the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that reasonable figures of Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- should be granted towards the conventional heads namely Loss of estate, Loss of consortium and funeral expenses.

(iv) There is no evidence to show that the deceased put some signal regarding parking the vehicle in the middle of the road. Hence, the accident happened due to the mistake of the deceased.

5. That the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that even though the deceased was working at Ghaziabad, the same is part of National Capital Territory of Delhi. Hence, the learned Tribunal rightly applied the minimum wages as appli