IMPORTANT POINT
In absence of documentary proof, minimum wage notifications serve as a basis for income assessment in compensation claims.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant/non-claimant No.2 has filed the instant appeal under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988, challenging the validity of the judgment and award dated 01.02.2017 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1, Udaipur (‘Tribunal’) in MAC Case No.218/2015, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation in favour of claimants to tune of Rs.19,20,000/- along with interest @ 8.5% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition on account of death of Sh. Shankar Lal.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988 before the learned Tribunal claiming compensation on account of untimely death of Sh. Shankar Lal. In the claim petition, it was stated by the claimants that on 07.01.2015 at about 8:15 PM, while the deceased was going to his home in Aamli ka Chauda on his motorcycle bearing number RJ-27/M-5712, he met with an accident with the motorcycle bearing number RJ-27/SY6823 at Halopada ka Ghatar, and resultantly, deceased Shankar Lal received griveous injuries and died. At the time of the accident, the ag e of the deceased was 35 years and thus the claimants filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 54,51,000/-.

3. Thereafter, learned Tribunal issued notices to the non-claimants. Respondent no. 7 denied the facts of the claim petition and stated that it was negligence of the deceased himself while the appellant-non-claimant no. 2 denied the factum and averred that the FIR was registered after a delay of 9 days and that the driver did not have an effective and valid driving license at the time of the accident. Thereafter, claimants in support of their claim petition examined 2 witnesses and produced 19 documents whereas no witness(es) or any document(s) was examined or led in defence.

4. After hearing both the parties, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition of the claimants and vide judgment/award dated 01.02.2017 awarded a quantum of compensation to the tune of Rs. 19,20,000/- with the interest @ 8.5% and being dissatisfied of the award, the appellant-Insurance Company has preferred this appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has laid a challenge to the impugned award only to the extent of quantum of the compensation so awarded by the learned Tribunal. He submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs. 90,000/- per annum, while adding 50% future prospects for his loss of income. He also submits that according to the age of the deceased, i.e. 35 years, the multiplier of 15 ought to have been applied in the light of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation : AIR 2009 SC 3104, however the learned Tribunal has erred in taking the multiplier as 16.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-claimants submits that the submission of the learned counsel of the appellant that learned Tribunal has erred in taking the income of the deceased as Rs. 90,000/- per annum, cannot be considered and the income determined by the learned Tribunal cannot be reduced inasmuch as the respondent no.1/claimant had deposed that the income of the deceased was Rs. 15,000 per month which was not rebutted while examining respondent no.1/claimant. He thus submits that in the absence of any rebuttal made by the appellant-Insurance Company during the examination of respondent no.1/claimant, the learned Tribunal has rightly arrived at the income of the deceased and thus, the same does not deserve to be reduced. He also relies upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Gautam Banerjee v. Dr. C.P. Vidyarthi [M.A. No. 225 of 2018 decided on 20.12.2023] wherein the High Court has categorically held that inasmuch as there was no rebuttal made by the opposite parties to the statement of the claimant with respect to his income, the opposite parties cannot cast any doubt in respect of th