Mr. B.S. Walia, J. (Oral) - Appeal has been filed by the widow and two minor sons aged 9 years and 11 years for enhancement of compensation on account of the death of Satish Kumar husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellants No.2 and 3. By taking the age of the deceased as 36 years income @Rs.. 5000/- per month by applying multiplier of 15 and by making deduction of 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses, the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) awarded compensation of Rs.8,10,000/- including Rs.10,000/- on account of loss of estate, Rs.10,000/- on account of loss of consortium, Rs. 5000 towards transportation expenses and Rs.5000/- towards funeral expenses.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has confined his submissions to plea of less assessment of income, non-award of compensation on account of future prospects as also with regard to conventional heads as per entitlement.

3. Learned counsel contended that admittedly the deceased was a truck driver. The accident took place on 19.09.2010. Although salary of the deceased was claimed at Rs.9000/- per month besides Rs.150/- per day as diet money, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.5000/- per month on the ground that no proof in respect thereto had been led by the appellants-claimant.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants has referred to the decision of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in “Minu Rout and another vs. Satya Pradymna Mohapatra and others, [2013(6) Law Herald (SC) 4871 : 2014(1) Law Herald (P&H) 293 (SC)] : 2014(1) SCC (Cri)384 to contend that in said case as against income of Rs.3000/- assessed by the learned Tribunal as salary of the deceased-car driver who had died in a accident on 08.11.2004, the Hon’ble Supreme Court assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.6000/- per month. Learned counsel has also referred to the decision of this Court in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prem Kumar and others, [2014(6) Law Herald (P&H) 4743] : 2014 (3) PLR 860 in support of the plea that where income of the driver of TATA 407 vehicle was claimed to be Rs.7000/- per month and no proof had been placed on record, a Coordinate Bench of this court by relying upon the decision of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Minu Rout’s case (supra) assessed the income of the deceased-driver who had sustained injuries in the accident in 2008 at Rs.6500/- per month. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Delhi High Court in Mahrunish and others vs. Mohd. Naseem Haider and others, 2013 ACJ 2273, wherein the salary of a truck driver who had died in an accident on 24.09.2009 was taken at Rs.7000/- per month.

5. Relevant extract of the decision of Hon’ble the Supreme Court this Court as well as Hon’ble the Delhi High court is reproduced as under:

Relevant extract of the decision in Minu Rout’s case.

Therefore, it is urged by the learned counsel that the Tribunal has committed an error on fact by taking Rs.3000/- as monthly salary of the deceased for determination of multiplicand by ignoring the fact that the job of a driver is a skilled job. The Tribunal should have taken Rs.6000/- per month as the salary of the deceased and 1/3rd should have deducted from his monthly salary towards his personal expenses.

The appellants claimed compensation under the heading of loss of dependency as they were all dependents upon the earnings of the deceased Susil Rout. It is an undisputed fact that Susil Rout was working as a driver of the car which is a skilled job. Appellants have stated in the claim petition and in the evidence of PW-1 that the deceased was earning Rs.5000/- per month. The oral evidence of PW-1 is not accepted by the Tribunal, solely for the reason that the appellants did not produce documentary evidence to prove the monthly salary of the deceased as Rs.5000/- per month