The court upheld the Tribunal's income assessment based on minimum wages due to lack of evidence for higher claims and awarded enhanced compensation for loss of consortium.

ORDER :

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment/award dated 24.01.2019 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-First, Jodhpur in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 313/2014 (NCV No. 3169/2014) whereby an award for an amount of Rs. 7,61,160/- with interest @ 9% per annum has been passed in favour of the claimants who are mother and father of the deceased.

2. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that there is ample evidence available on record to show that the deceased was engaged in the furniture making work and earned Rs. 16, 000/- per month. Therefore, the income ought to have been computed @ Rs. 16,000/- per month.

Learned counsel further submits that the deduction of half of the income qua personal expenses ought not to have been made and it ought to have been one-third as the claimants-dependants are mother and father of the deceased.

3. At the inception, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Insurance Company fairly admitted that the amount qua head of consortium has not been granted by the learned Tribunal and the award deserves interference only to that extent. He however, submitted that so far as the amount awarded qua the other heads and the loss of income is concerned, the computation as made by learned Tribunal is perfectly in consonance with law and the same does not deserve any interference.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record.

5. On the ground that the learned Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased to be Rs. 4, 836/- per month as per the minimum wages of a skilled labour prevailing at that point of time, this Court is of the opinion that it is clear from a bare perusal of statements of AW-1 Smt. Rasal Kanwar, the mother of deceased (claimant No. 1), that although she deposed that her son earned Rs. 16,000/- per month but then she specifically admitted that she was not aware as to where her son worked at Pune. She further admitted that her son worked as per orders and was not a regular employee. Further, no documentary evidence pertaining to the work/business of the deceased or his income has been placed on record. Hence, the claimants-appellants have failed to prove the income of the deceased to be Rs. 16,000/- per month.

6. The issue of assessment of income for calculation of compensation when there is no definite proof of income on record has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of cases.

The case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others; (2018) 18 SCC 130 would be of relevance, wherein it was held as under:

“8.3. With respect to the income of the deceased, as the family could not produce any evidence to show that the income of the deceased was Rs. 15,000/- per month, as claimed, the High Court took his income to be Rs. 6000/- which is marginally above the minimum wage of an unskilled worker at Rs. 5342. This finding is also not being interfered with.”

In the case of Manusha Sree kumar and Ors. v. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.; AIR 2022 SC 5161, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:

“19......This Court in Chandra Alias Chanda Alias Chandraram and Anr. v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav and Ors., (2022) 1 SCC 198, has aptly held that in the absence of a salary certificate, the minimum wages notification along with some amount of guesswork that is not completely detached from reality shall act as a yardstick to determine the income of the deceased.”

7. In the opinion of this Court, as the deceased was engaged in furniture making work, the computation of income on the basis of minimum wages of a skilled labour by the learned Tribunal, is totally in consonance with the ratio as laid down in the aforesaid judgments and the settled position of law.

8. Regarding the issue qua amount to be awarded under the head of consortium, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Ors.; (2017) 16 SCC 680 has fixed the amount payable under the conve