JUDGMENT : 

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 17.02.2024 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nuh in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Tribunal’) for wherein the appellant-Insurance Company was held liable to pay the amount of Rs.16,49,480/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum, on account of death of Mordhawaj in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 06.05.2019 on the ground that quantum of compensation is on higher side.

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 required to be reproduced here for the sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

3. The learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company contends that the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 7,800 per month by considering him to be a skilled worker under the minimum wages notification issued by the Government of Rajasthan, without there being Documentary Evidence on record to justify such categorisation.

4. He further contends that, as per the minimum wages notification issued by the Government of Rajasthan, the minimum wages payable to an unskilled labourer are Rs. 5,850 per month in terms of Notification No.F.5(6)New.M./Labour/2000/Part/7/82 dated 06.03.2019. 

5. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and the award dated 17/02/2024 is liable to be modified by reassessing the monthly income of the deceased in terms of the minimum wages prescribed by the State Government for unskilled labourer during the relevant period.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents contends that learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased after taking into account the minimum wages for skilled labour and surrounding circumstances of the deceased Therefore, he pray for dismissal of the appeal.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case with their able assistance.

8. The relevant portion of the award is reproduced as under:-

“12. The petitioners have claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. The petitioners have not produced any documentary evidence for proving the income of the deceased. As per record, deceased was a resident of District Bharatpur and in these circumstances it may be presumed that the deceased must have been earning minimum wages of Rajasthan Government, which were Rs.7,774/- (rounded of Rs.7,800/-) per month, at the time of accident. Therefore, income of the deceased is presumed to be Rs.7,800/- per month, which comes to Rs.93,600/- per annum.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the deceased was 30 years old at the time of accident. The age of deceased is recorded as 32 years in the inquest memo Ex.P15 prepared by police. As per Driving Licence Ex.R1 of deceased, the date of birth of the deceased was 12.07.1988. The accident took place on 06.05.2019 and the age of the deceased was about 30 years and 10 months on the date of alleged accident, hence the age of deceased is therefore, considered as 32 years. therefore, 40% of his income is to be added for future prospects. After adding 40% income of the deceased, total income of the deceased comes to Rs.1,31,040/-. Since there are six dependents of the deceased, 1/4th of his income is liable to be deducted for personal expenses. Therefore, annual loss of income comes to Rs.98,280/- only.

14. Since the age of the deceased was 32 years at the time of accident, multiplier of 16 is applicable. By applying the multiplier of 16, total loss of income comes to Rs.15,72,480/- only.

15. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Versus Pranay Sethi 2017(4) RCR (Civil) 1009, the petitioners are also entitled to Rs.44,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs.16,500/