JUDGMENT :

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated 18.05.2009 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (for brevity, “the Tribunal”), whereby an amount of Rs.2,75,000/- was awarded as compensation to the appellants/claimants along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition till its realization on account of death of Mohit Kumar in a motor vehicular accident, that occurred on 29.06.2008.

[2] Since the sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to the quantum of compensation and apportionment, a detailed narration of the facts of the case is omitted herein for the sake of brevity.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS

[3] The appellants/claimants before the learned Tribunal had claimed compensation by assessing the monthly income of the deceased at ₹3,000/-, which was accordingly accepted and granted by the learned Tribunal. However, the appellants have assailed the said award before this Court on the ground that the learned Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased on the lower side, and that the same ought to have been determined on the basis of the minimum wages. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the deceased was about 14–15 years of age at the time of the accident, yet the learned Tribunal applied a multiplier of 15, whereas the appropriate multiplier in the facts and circumstances of the case ought to have been 17. It was also contended that the compensation awarded under the conventional heads, as well as the rate of interest granted by the learned Tribunal, were inadequate and on the lower side. On these grounds, learned counsel prayed for enhancement of the compensation.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT No.3/INSURANCE COMPANY

[4] Per contra, learned counsel representing respondent No.3/Insurance Company neither refuted the factum of accident nor even the negligence of the offending vehicle, however submitted that in the facts of the present case, the compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal called for no interference.

DISCUSSION AND REASONING

[5] I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the paper-book of the case. I find force in the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the appellants.

QUESTION AS TO THE INCOME OF THE DECEASED

[6] In the present case, Smt. Asha Rani, mother of the deceased while appearing as PW-1 deposed that the deceased was working as a helper at a fertilizer shop in New Grain Market, Ladwa, earning Rs.3,000/- per month; however no cogent documentary or oral evidence was led in support of the same. The learned Tribunal while considering the deceased to be a casual labourer assessed his monthly income @Rs. 3,000/-. As the nature of proceedings in Motor Accident Claims, being summary in nature, evidence in stricto sensu is not required.

[6.1] The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of “Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav & Ors.” reported as (2022) 1 SCC 198, held that in the absence of proof of income, the minimum wage notification can be a yardstick but at the same time cannot be absolute one to fix the income of the deceased and some guesswork is required to be done to assess the income.

Relevant excerpt thereof is reproduced hereunder:-

“…….In the absence of salary certificate the minimum wage notification can be a yardstick but at the same time cannot be an absolute one to fix the income of the deceased. In the absence of documentary evidence on record some amount of guesswork is required to be done. But at the same time the guesswork for assessing the income of deceased should not be totally detached from reality. Merely because claimants were unable to produce documentary evidence to show the monthly income of Shivpal, same does not justify adoption of lowest tier of minimum wage while computing the income.

There is no reason to discard the oral evidence of the wife of the deceased who