JUDGMENT : 

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

1. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated 04.05.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar (for brevity, “the Tribunal”), whereby an amount of Rs. 13,52,022/- was awarded as compensation to the appellant/claimant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition till its realization on account of death of Bhupender alias Vicky in a motor vehicular accident, occurred on 11.06.2016.

2. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed narration of the facts of the case is not reproduced and is skipped herein for the sake of brevity.

ARGUMENTS

ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS

3. The learned counsel for the appellants assailed the award by submitting that the deceased was earning Rs. 50,000/- per month while working as an electrician, having obtained the requisite technical qualifications from ITI Hisar. It was further submitted that the above fact was duly proved from the deposition of claimants which was not rebutted by the respondents by leading any evidence and therefore, the learned Tribunal went wrong while having assessed monthly income @ Rs. 9,258/- per month. He further argued that the deduction of 1/3^rd towards personal expenses was contrary to law, as in the case of bachelor, only 1/4^th should have been deducted. He further contended that the application of multiplier of 17 was incorrect and the appropriate multiplier ought to have been 18, and that only 40% addition towards future prospects was granted, whereas a 50% enhancement was legally mandated. Furthermore, it was submitted that the amount of compensation granted under conventional heads was not in consonance with the settled law, therefore, he prayed for enhancement of compensation as per latest decisions on the subject.

ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT No.2/INSURANCE COMPANY

4. Per contra, learned counsel representing respondent No. 2/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 being based on proper appreciation of the material on record.

DISCUSSION

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 OF INCOME ASSESSED

6. In the present case, the appellants/claimants, submitted that the deceased was working as an electrician, having obtained the requisite technical qualifications from ITI Hisar, thus, earning Rs. 50,000/- per month. Since, no documentary evidence to support the income of the deceased was placed before the Tribunal, thus, learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of deceased @ Rs. 9,258/- per month considering him as an unskilled labourer. However, it is an admitted fact that the appellant was 30 years of age at the time of accident and, in this regard observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Kubra Bibi vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.”, reported as 2023 (3) Apex Court Judgments (SC) 23, to the effect that in the absence of definite proof of income, the social status of the deceased needs to be kept in mind where such person is employed in an unorganized sector and accordingly, the notional income in any event is required to be taken into consideration; may help the cause of the appellant. Relevant para from this judgment is reproduced hereunder:

“7. In a matter of the present nature where the compensation is sought and even in absence of definite proof of the income, the social status of the deceased is to be kept in perspective where such persons are employed in unorganized sector and the notional income in any event is required to be taken into consideration. The fact that the deceased had three dependents to be cared