The court ruled that oral evidence regarding income is valid even without documentary proof, leading to a reassessment of compensation based on future prospects.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

Mrs. Alka Sarin, J.

CM-15710-CII-2012

This is an application for condonation of delay of 9 days in filing the appeal.

For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 9 days in filing the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed off.

FAO-3653-2012

The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari vide award dated 01.09.2011.

2. Since the facts, as recorded in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, are not in dispute, the same are not being reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.

3. The Tribunal in the present case had awarded the following compensation :

4. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that the wife of the deceased had stepped into the witness box and stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. The learned counsel would further contend that the statement of the wife ought to have been believed and the income of the deceased ought to have been assessed as Rs. 20,000/- per month instead of Rs. 4,800/- per month. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that though multiplier of 15' as well as deduction of 1/3rd was applied correctly, however, no addition has been made towards future prospects which ought to have been 40%. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that the amount awarded under the conventional heads as well as under the head 'loss of consortium' is also not in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In support of his contention he has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680], Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. [(2018) 18 SCC 130] and N. Jayasree & Ors. v. Cholamandalam M.S General Insurance Company Ltd. [2021(4) RCR (Civil) 642].

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company has vehemently argued that sufficient amount has already been awarded as compensation in the present case and that there is no scope of any enhancement.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7. In the present case, the argument of the learned counsel for the claimant-appellants that the income of the deceased ought to have been assessed as Rs. 20,000/- per month cannot be accepted in the absence of any documentary proof. However, it has come on the record that the deceased was owner of two trucks and possibly he could have been driving one of the trucks himself. The minimum wage of a skilled worker prevailing at the time of the accident i.e. in the year 2010 was Rs. 4,738/- per month and the income of the deceased has been assessed by the Tribunal as Rs. 4,800/- per month. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav [2021 (4) RCR (Civil) 492] has held as under :

10. It is the specific case of the claimants that the deceased was possessing heavy vehicle driving licence and was earning Rs. 15000/- per month. Possessing such licence and driving of heavy vehicle on the date of accident is proved from the evidence on record. Though the wife of the deceased has categorically deposed as AW-1 that her husband Shivpal was earning Rs. 15000/- per month, same was not considered only on the ground that salary certificate was not filed. The Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased by adopting minimum wage notified for the skilled labour in the year 2016. In absence of salary certificate the minimum wage notification can be a