JUDGMENT :

Deepak Gupta, J.

CM-14666-CII-2024

1. This is an application under Section 151 CPC to condone the delay of 2 days in re-filing the appeal.

Heard.

For the reasons as mentioned in the application, supported by an affidavit of the counsel for the appellant, the delay of 02 days in refiling the appeal is hereby condoned.

The application stands disposed of.

FAO-3984-2024 (O&M)

Insurance Company is in this appeal against the Award dated 16.04.2024 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nuh (hereinafter referred as 'the Tribunal'), whereby compensation of Rs. 20,93,000/- has been granted on account of death of one Maksood S/o Mihra Khan @ Mihra in a motor vehicular accident, which took place on 13.05.2014.

2. It is not in dispute that accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of Trolla No. HR-74A-1969, which was being driven by respondent No. 11 herein. The said vehicle was owned by respondent No. 12 herein and the same was insured by the appellantcompany.

3. Neither the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle nor the liability to pay the compensation amount are in dispute. The only dispute raised by the Insurance Company is in respect of quantum of compensation.

4. The sole contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company is that deceased was resident of Rajasthan. The accident had taken place in May, 2014 and that at the relevant time, the minimum wages prevalent in Rajasthan were Rs. 4,914/-per month for unskilled labour, which was required to be taken into consideration in the absence of any cogent proof regarding the earning of the deceased, but learned Tribunal has taken into account the income of the deceased to be Rs. 10,000/- per month without any reasons. Learned counsel has also drawn attention towards the calculations filed by the Insurance Company and submitted that compensation of only Rs. 10,67,662/- is payable.

5. Caveat was filed on behalf of the claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 10 herein. It is contended by learned counsel for the said respondents-claimants that deceased was working as an Imam in a Mosque. Though the address of the deceased and the claimants is of Rajasthan, but their village Hajipur, Tehsil Ramgarh, District Alwar (Rajasthan) is adjoining to Haryana and as the accident took place within the area of Haryana, therefore, the standard of income as prevalent in Haryana should be taken into consideration. He also argues that an Imam cannot be equated with an unskilled labour. His further contention is that there are as many as 10 claimants, who are widowed mother, aged 78 years; widow of deceased Maksood, besides 08 children, but the Tribunal has granted compensation under the head of loss of consortium only to the widow of the deceased and that no compensation was awarded for loss of parental and filial consortium. Learned counsel further argues that merely because the claimants are unable to produce documentary evidence to show the monthly income of the deceased, the same does not justify adoption of the lowest tier of the minimum wages while computing income. Learned counsel relies upon "Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram & Anr. v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav & Ors.", 2021(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 492.

6. This Court has considered submissions of both the sides and have appraised the record.

7. It has not been disputed that deceased was working as an Imam in the Mosque. His age as 37 years, is also not disputed. The contention of learned counsel for the claimants that as the village of the deceased was adjoining to Haryana and so, standard income in Haryana should have been adopted is without any merit.

8. It is also not disputed that no documentary evidence or any cogent evidence has been produced regarding income of the deceased, except for the oral statement made by one of the claimants- Farmina.

9. As per the appellant-Company, the minimum wages prevalent in Rajasthan were Rs. 4,914/- per month. Although, no evidence is produced regarding any