Income assessment for compensation must reflect realistic estimates, not merely minimum wage, ensuring just compensation based on evidence and established legal principles.

JUDGMENT

Mrs. Alka Sarin, J. (Oral) - The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant- Insurance Company aggrieved by award dated 08.05.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, SAS Nagar Mohali. The grouse of the appellant-Insurance Company is qua the quantum of compensation which has been awarded to the claimant-respondent Nos.1 to 4.

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 appellant-Insurance Company would contend that despite there being no evidence qua the income of the deceased, monthly income of the deceased has been assessed as Rs. 8,000/- whereas the minimum wage at the time of the accident was Rs. 5,200/- per month. Further, an addition of 50% has been made towards future prospects whereas as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680] it ought to have been 40%. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that the amount awarded under the conventional heads is not as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), 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 Nos.1 to 4/claimants has contended that though there is no evidence qua the income of the deceased, however, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income as Rs. 8,000/- per month on the basis of guess work. In support of his contentions the learned counsel has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Ali Kunhi v. Abdu Salim & Ors. [Civil Appeal No.3543 of 2023 decided on 09.05.2023]; Kunta Devi & Ors. v. Bhura Ram & Anr. [Civil Appeal No.5356-5359 of 2023 decided on 21.08.2023] and Jeyarani & Anr. v. The Manager Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. [2023 ACJ 2390]. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4/claimants has further contended that no amount has been awarded under the head 'loss of consortium'.

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

7. In the present case the learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company has argued that the income of the deceased has been assessed as Rs. 8,000/- per month without there being any evidence on the record. It was further argued that the minimum wage at the time of the accident was Rs. 5,200/- per month. Per contra the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4/claimants has relied upon the judgment in the case of Ali Kunhi (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had assessed the income of the injured as Rs. 5,000/- per month in the absence of any evidence and the accident in the said case took place in the year 2007. In Kunta Devi's (supra) the income of the deceased was assessed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as Rs. 12,000/- per month in the absence of any evidence qua an accident which took place in the year 2009. In Jeyarani's case (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court had assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 9,000/- per month regarding an accident which took place in the year 2013 in the absence of any evidence.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav [2021 (4) RCR (Civil) 492] has held as un