JUDGMENT

Mrs. Archana Puri, J.

These are two appeals, filed by the Insurance Company, thereby, assailing the Award dated 29.09.2017 passed learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to 'Tribunal'), thereby, granting compensation, on account of deaths of Paramjeet Singh @ Manpreet @ Manu and Amit Kumar, in a motor vehicular accident, which took place on 06.03.2015.

2. On appraisal of the evidence, brought on record, learned Tribunal had granted compensation to the extent of Rs.16,10,496/- qua death of Paramjeet Singh @ Manpreet @ Manu (Claim petition No.I) and on account of death of Amit Kumar (Claim Petition No.II), compensation was granted to the extent of 15,59,840/-.

3. Aggrieved with the same, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeals.

4. So far as, fact and manner of accident as well as involvement of motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-03P-3922, in the accident and the liability, so fastened upon the owner-cum-driver and insurance company, is concerned, no appeal, as such, has been filed by LRs of Sitar Mohammad (owner-cum-driver), who had also died in the accident in question. As such, fact and manner of accident as well as involvement part and liability, so fastened upon the LRs of Sitar Mohammad, has attained finality. However, two appeals in hand, have been filed by the Insurance Company to challenge the quantum of compensation, so granted.

5. As evident from the record, both the deceased were asserted by the respondents-claimants to be indulging in agricultural pursuit and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. However, on account of no satisfactory evidence coming on record, with regard to the avocation, so followed, by both the deceased, learned Tribunal had considered both the deceased as unskilled labourer and on the basis of Notification bearing End st. No.335-450/DN/2015-2016 dated 05.05.2015, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Panchkula, in the financial year 2015-2016, considered the monthly salary of unskilled labourer and the earnings of the deceased were assessed to be Rs.9320/- and thereupon, further compensation was computed, keeping in view their age.

6. However, the Insurance Company had asserted that in fact, it was required on the part of learned Tribunal to have assessed the compensation, while considering the minimum wages, as per the Notification of the Haryana Government, prevalent at the relevant time. It is submitted that at the relevant time, the minimum wages were Rs.5812/- per month.

7. In fact, learned counsel for the appellant assiduously submitted that the compensation ought to be worked upon, as per minimum wages, which is standardised basis and this has been so followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases and few of them are 'Manusha Sreekumar and others v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , 2022 SCC Online SC 1441 , Rajan v. Soly Sebastian and another , 2015(10) SCC 506 and furthermore, also reliance has been placed upon the judgments passed by this Court. Few of the judgments passed by this Court are ' Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Smt.Ompati , 2018 ACJ 2804' and 'United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt.Neelam and others', passed in FAO-4712-2015, decided on 21.09.2018.

8. Further, it has also been submitted that learned Tribunal had erroneously taken the future prospects @ 50%. However, addition has to be made @ 40%, in view of the National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017(4) RCR (Civil) 1009. Considering the same, it is submitted that the compensation, ought to be reduced, qua both the aforesaid deceased. As such, a prayer has been made for acceptance of both the appeals and to appropriately reduce the amount of compensation, so awarded.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants has assiduously submitted that there is no bar