The court emphasized accurate income assessment for compensation, ruling that actual business income should be prioritized over minimum wage for unskilled labor.

ORDER :

REKHA BORANA, J.

1. The present misc. appeal has been preferred by the appellants-claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded vide Judgment and Award dated 08.11.2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagaur in MACT Case No. 118/2014 (Computer No.441/15).

Vide impugned judgment/award dated 08.11.2017 the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,61,000/- in favour of the claimants along with the interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.

2. Brief facts as pleaded in the claim petition are that on 16.03.2014, one Harchand Nath along with Kan Nath, was en route from Nagaur to Baghnada on his vehicle bearing registration No.RJ-21-GA-9539. At around 6:30 PM, a truck bearing registration No. RJ-07-GB-6755 being driven rashly and negligently on the wrong side of the road, collided with Harchand Nath’s vehicle resulting in his fatality. FIR No. 12/2014 pertaining to the said accident was lodged at Police Station Nagaur.

The offending vehicle, on the date of the accident, was insured with respondent No.3 Insurance Company.

3. The appellants-claimants are the dependents of deceased Harchand Nath. The learned Court after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence available on record and after hearing the counsel for the parties, while assessing the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.4,914/-, awarded total compensation of Rs.10,61,000/- in favor of the appellants-claimants, the breakup of which is as under:

Learned Tribunal below also awarded interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e.

17.10.2014.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants raised the following grounds:

(i) The learned Tribunal erroneously computed the income of the deceased to be Rs.4,914/- per month on basis of the wages of an unskilled labour whereas the deceased was engaged in selling construction material and hence, a monthly income of Rs.18,000/-ought to have been considered for computation of income.

(ii) The learned Tribunal committed a significant error in its adjudication by non-grant of compensation qua the medical bills and expenses placed on record amounting to Rs.4,00,000/-.

(iii) The learned Tribunal erroneously awarded insufficient compensation qua the conventional head of ‘Consortium’.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company while supporting the impugned award submitted that the learned Tribunal rightly assessed the monthly income on basis of the prevalent minimum wages as there was no documentary evidence available on record to prove the income of the deceased. Further, while refuting the submission made with regard to the medical bills and expenses, counsel submitted that certain bills were not admissible on count of being incomplete and not being the original copies.

However, learned counsel could not refute the position of law regarding the compensation qua the conventional head of ‘Consortium’.

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

7. A bare perusal of the material available on record reflects that Smt. Goga Devi (AW-1), the wife of the deceased deposed her husband to be running a business of building material and to be earning a monthly income of Rs.18,000/-. AW-2 Chun Nath deposed that he had purchased building material from Harchand Nath worth Rs.22,000/-. True it is that no specific documentary evidence was placed on record to substantiate the above statements but then it is established on record that the deceased was involved in a