Compensation for death in motor vehicle accident must be based on established minimum wages, with future prospects considered, and consortium awarded to dependents.

ORDER :

This appeal by the claimants under section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act is arising out of the award dated 30.09.2015 passed by Additional Member MACT, Neemuch in Claim Case No.67/2014 seeking enhancement of compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal.

2. The date of accident, negligence and the issue of liability are not in dispute and the findings recorded by the Tribunal in this regard are also not in question. As per the findings of the Tribunal, for the death of Prahlad, the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.6,07,000/- along with interest.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- which is on lower side. Tribunal has held deceased to be unskilled labour, therefore, monthly income of deceased should have been assessed/determined as per circular/notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948/Guidelines issued by M.P.State Legal Services Authority. In this connection learned counsel for the appellants/claimants has relied on the judgments in the case of Sapna and others Vs. Mangilal and another 2021 ACJ 957, Bhimsingh Vs. Jagmelsingh and another M.A.No.5350/2022 decided on 07.07.2023, Shankar and others Vs. Dinesh and others M.A.No.2057/2021 decided on 08.09.2023, Sohanlal and others Vs. Noorsingh and others M.A.No.7014/2019 decided on 22.08.2023, Smt. Nirmala and others Vs. Gudia and others M.A.no.4193/2019 decided on 07.11.2023.

4. As per para 1 of AW-1, all the claimants are dependent on the deceased. There is nothing in the cross examination of above witness that claimants were not dependent on deceased. Thus, in the absence of any rebuttal, all claimants should be considered as dependant on deceased. As in the instant case, there are six dependants on deceased, hence, 1/4th should be deducted for personal expenses and not 1/3rd as deducted by the Tribunal. It is further submitted that for the purpose of consortium, grand parents should be considered to be included in “parents” and sister should be included for the purpose of consortium under the head of filial consortium. In this connection he has relied on judgment in the case of Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram and others reported in 2018 ACJ 2782 wherein consortium has been awarded to sister.

5. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that directions issued by the M.P.State Legal Services Authority are only meant for the purpose of Lok Adalat and they are not binding on this Court while deciding the case on merits. Deceased was resident of village and incident occurred in the year 2014 and in the year 2014, minimum wages fixed for industrial labour were Rs.3070/ - per month. It is also urged that while calculating minimum basic pay/income, dearness allowance and perks are not to be included. Only in the case of industrial labour, dearness allowance and perks can be included while calculating the monthly income. It is further submitted that father of the deceased is aged 43 years, therefore, father as well as grandparents/sister of deceased cannot be considered as dependent on deceased. Only rest of the three can be considered to be dependent on deceased. Hence, 1/3rd deducted by Tribunal for personal expenses is correct. It is also urged that grand parents and sister are not entitled for consortium. In the instance case, principle laid down in the case of Nanu Ram (Supra) does not apply. In this connection learned counsel for the Insurance Company has referred to para 8 of the case of Nanu Ram (Supra) whereas it is mentioned that “looking to the facts and circumstances of the case”.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

Principles regarding determination of income:-

7. So far as calculation of actual income/established income for determining compensation is concerned, where there is do