Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 1645
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Lisa Gill
FAO No. 2110 of 2016 (O&M)
Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd.
v.
Beant Kaur & Ors.
{Decided on 14/03/2019}
Mr. Sagar Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellants in FAO No.2288 of 2017 and for respondents No.1 to 5 in FAO No.2110 of 2016.
Mr. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the appellant in FAO No.5882 of 2018 None for respondents No.1 to 5 in FAO No.5882 of 2018.
Mr. Rajesh K. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant in FAO No.3757 of 2018.
Mr. Rajiv Kumar Saini, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3 in FAO No.3757 of 2018.
Mr. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for the appellant in FAO No.6845 of 2016 and for respondent No.2 in FAO No.1652 of 2017.
Mr. Nonish Kumar, Advocate for the appellants in FAO No.2288 of 2017 and for respondents No.1 to 4 in FAO No.6845 of 2016.
Mr. Sachin Ohri, Advocate for the appellant in FAO No.916 of 2018.
Mr. Sagar Aggarwal, Advocate for Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4/cross-objectors in FAO No.916 of 2018.
Accident--Negligence--Mere fact of triple riding would not make any difference and the same cannot be taken as a ground to presume contributory negligence
Accident--Income--Assessment of--In absence of documentary evidence of income, its assessment cannot be confined to the minimum wages as notified--DC rates or any other oral or supporting evidence should be taken into consideration
Headnote:
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Accident--Income--Assessment of--Where no documentary evidence is led by the claimants to prove the income of deceased or injured, assessment of income should not be confined to the minimum wages as notified and such assessment would be dependent upon facts and circumstances of each case and evidence on record. (Para 15)
the wage rate as per the minimum wage notification is only a yardstick and not an absolute factor to be taken to determine the compensation under the future loss of income. Minimum wage, as per the State government notification alone may at times fail to meet the requirements that are needed to maintain the basic quality of life since it is not inclusive of factors of cost of living index
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Accident--Income--Assessment of--In absence of documentary evidence of income should not be confined to the minimum wages as notified--To provide just compensation wages fixed by Deputy Commissioner of are known as DC rates or any other oral or supporting evidence can also be taken into consideration.
There may be instances where oral evidence along with other supporting evidence on record may inspire confidence. There has to be a sound evaluation of the oral evidence and supporting circumstances in the factual matrix of each particular case.
The Tribunal/Court while keeping in view the minimum wage fixed under the Minimum Wages Act as the basic criterion at the outset would proceed to determine whether income of the deceased/injured is to be assessed at any higher level keeping in view the evidence on record.
(C) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Accident--Income--Proof of--Merely because the Income Tax Returns of deceased were not placed on record cannot be a ground to disbelieve the stand of the claimant that deceased was working as a welder at the time of his death--Income assessed as per DC rates prevailing at that time. (Para 72)
(D) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Accident--Negligence--Contributory Negligence--Mere fact of triple riding would not make any difference and the same cannot be taken as a ground to presume contributory negligence on the part of the claimants, unless there is specific evidence to prove contributory negligence. (Para 26)
Offending truck struck the motorcycle of the deceased from the back--In such a situation, it cannot be concluded that merely due to the factum of triple riding and in the absence of any specific evidence on record to indicate that triple riding was a causative factor of the accident, there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.
JUDGMENT
Mrs. Lisa Gill, J.:- This judgment shall dispose of FAO No.2110 of 2016, FAO No.2288 of 2017, FAO No.5882 of 2018, FAO No.6845 of 2016, FAO No.1652 of 2017, FAO No.3757 of 2018 and FAO No.916 of 2018 alongwith XOBJC No.163-CII of 2018.
2. All these appeals are taken up together for hearing as one common primary question is raised in all these appeals by learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Companies viz.,
‘whether in a case, where no documentary evidence is led by the claimants to prove the income of a deceased or injured as the case may be, it is the minimum wages as fixed by the State under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, which should be assessed as the income of the deceased/injured or the rates fixed by the Deputy Commissioner of the area, to be paid in contingencies to workers appointed by the government on contract at that particular point of time (hereinafter referred to, as the ‘DC Rates’)?’
3. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Companies vehemently argue that in a situation where the claimants fail to lead any documentary evidence to prove the income of the deceased or injured as the case may be, the Court/Tribunal should not assess income to be more than minimum wage as may be fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. It is contended that in case the DC Rates in a particular district are followed, there would be a loss of uniformity in assessment of income of the deceased/injured. It is submitted that DC Rates vary from district to district and there is no structured manner or basis for fixation of the said wages. Moreover, the DC Rates are not reflective of the minimum wage which may be prevalent at a particular point of time. DC Rates, it is submitted, reflect the wages which are paid to the workers who are appointed on contract with the Government Departments. These are the rates which are available to be paid to the persons employed in contingencies by the government departments/ agencies. It is further submitted that minimum wages as notified by the State provide uniformity. Moreover, the same are subject to periodic revisions and are applicable across the board in the unorganised sector. Therefore, it is only the minimum wages as notified by the State which should be the sole criterion for assessing income of the deceased/injured as the case may be.
4. Learned counsel for the claimants on the other hand with equal vehemence argued that minimum wages as notified by the State Government should not be the criterion at all for assessing income of the deceased or injured. DC Rates, it is contended offer a better criterion or guideline for such an assessment. Moreover, the Motor Vehicles Act, being a beneficial legislation, it is the DC Rates which should be taken in consideration while assessing income of the deceased/injured as they are a better indicator of the income actually earned by persons following various vocations.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
6. At the outset it would be useful to refer to relevant provisions of the Minimum Wages Act. The Minimum Wages Act, 1948 was enacted to ensure minimum wages to the workers in the unorganised sector as well as to provide for specified working hours, paid holidays etc. The Tripartite Committee on Fair Wages, which was constituted in 1948 by the Central Advisory Council observed that the minimum wages must be provided, not merely for the bare subsistence of life but also for the preservation of efficiency of the workers by providing for some measures of education, medical requirement and amenities. The said Committee referred to five elements, which should be considered while fixing the minimum wage, which reads as under:-
“1. 3 consumption units per earner;
2. Minimum food requirement of 2700 calories per average adult;
3. Cloth requirement of 72 yards per annum per family;
4. House rent corresponding to the minimum ar
