JUDGMENT :

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

[1]. Vide this common judgment, the above noted two appeals, bearing FAO No. 2652 of 2019 and FAO No. 774 of 2019, impugning the award dated 05.09.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, S.B.S. Nagar (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), shall be decided. For convenience, facts are being taken from FAO No. 2652 of 2019.

FACTS

[2]. A claim petition came to be filed at the instance of appellants/claimants before the learned Tribunal, praying for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lacs only) on account of death of Joginder Singh in a vehicular accident which took place on 23.05.2017 while alleging rash and negligent driving of respondent No.4-driver.

[3]. Learned Tribunal after appraisal of evidence on record held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 4 as well as respondent No. 7/driver of the offending vehicles and after assessing the income of deceased @ Rs.7,658.52/- per month in accordance with minimum wages of an unskilled labourer in the year 2017, awarded compensation in the following manner:-

Further, liability was jointly and severally fastened upon respondent NoS.4 to 7 in equal proportion, i.e. 50:50, and the compensation amount was

[4]. It is the said award dated 05.09.2018 which has been challenged by way of present two appeals.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS.

[5]. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants assailed the award while submitting that in the given facts, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal was on the lower side. It was further submitted that the deceased was engaged in agricultural activities, earning Rs.1,91,210/- per annum, besides earning Rs.15,000/- per month from generator repair work and that the said income stood duly proved through cogent oral and documentary evidence, including the testimony of CW-3 and J-Forms placed on record. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to assess the correct dependency and also applied an incorrect multiplier, resulting in a manifestly unjust and meager award. Furthermore, he concluded his arguments by submitting that the compensation awarded under conventional heads i.e. loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium was also assessed on the lower side, therefore, learned counsel prayed that the present appeal be allowed and compensation be enhanced, as per latest decisions on the subject.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE INSURANCE COMPANY

[6]. Per contra, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that the learned Tribunal gravely erred in fastening the liability to the extent of 50% upon the appellant/Insurance Company despite there being no cogent or reliable evidence to establish any negligence on the part of the insured vehicle or its driver. He further submitted that CW-2, the sole eye-witness and author of the FIR, categorically deposed that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 7, Harnek Singh, who was driving the Punjab Roadways bus and was the first to contribute to the accident. Therefore, he prayed that the impugned Award be set aside and the appellant be absolved of its unjustified liability to pay compensation.

DISCUSSION

[7]. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper books of the cases. I find force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants 

QUESTION OF INCOME ASSESSED

[8]. The primary controversy which arises for consideration is with regard to the assessment of income of the deceased. A perusal of the record reveals that the appellants/claimants specifically pleaded and led evidence to establish that the deceased was not a mere unskilled labourer, as assumed by the learned Tribunal, but was engaged in agricultural activities and was also carrying on generator repair work. In support thereof, the appellants examined Vishal