Court modified the Tribunal's award to reflect a higher notional income based on minimum wage notifications despite lack of direct evidence.

JUDGMENT

The appeal is at the instance of the legal heirs of one Sebastian, who died in an accident on 06.01.2018, seeking to challenge the award dated 08.10.2020 in O.P.(MV) No.626 of 2018, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakkuda (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’). 2. The claimants pointed out that the deceased was working as an Aluminium Fabricator, earning an amount of Rs.25,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal found that though such a contention was raised by the claimants, no documents were produced in support of the vocation as well as the income of the deceased. In that view of the matter, with reference to the accident that took place in the year 2018, the Tribunal fixed the notional income at Rs.10,000/-. It is seeking to challenge the afore, that the claimants are before this Court in this appeal.

3. Sri.Joseph Gopuran, learned counsel for the appellants, would rely on ‘Ground B’ of the appeal memorandum to contend that, as regards the compensation under the head “loss of dependency,” only a meagre amount has been awarded by the Tribunal, without taking note of the attending facts and circumstances. He would also rely on the judgments of the Apex Court inHitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari [2025 KHC OnLine 6771 (SC)],Angad Tiwari v. National Insurance Company Limited [2024 KHC OnLine 8590], and inJitendra v. Sadiya [ 2025 KHC OnLine 7101 ], in support of the contention that even if the claimant fails to produce evidence in support of the income claimed, the Tribunal has a duty to apply the notifications issued with reference to the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for short).

4. Per contra, Sri.George A. Cherian, learned counsel for the insurance company, would submit that there is no question of application of the afore decision to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand insofar as the appellants have not proved that the deceased was actually an Aluminium Fabricator. He would also go to the extent of saying that the deceased was aged 63 years at the time of accident and that being so, the claim that he was an Aluminium Fabricator, cannot be swallowed without a pinch of salt. He would also rely on the judgment of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Ekm v. Rajasree V.P. [ 2025 KHC OnLine 960 ] in support of his contention that, in such a situation, the compensation requires to be considered by making an honest estimation as regards the notional income of the appellant with reference to the principles laid down by the Apex Court inRamachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [(2011) 13 SCC

236]

5. I have considered the rival contentions as well as the connected records.

6. There is no dispute as regards the factual aspects.

The claimants, admittedly, have not adduced any sort of evidence in support of their claim that the deceased was actually an Aluminium Fabricator. In that view of the matter, prima facie, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal cannot be faulted in having fixed the compensation at Rs.10,000/- However, even with respect to that, if the principles laid down in Ramachandrappa is applied, insofar as the accident has taken place in the year 2018, the fixation of notional income ought to have been at Rs.11,500/-

7. On the face of the afore, we have to analyse the principles laid down in the judgment of the Apex Court in Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel (supra). That was a case where the Apex Court laid down certain principles with reference to the duty of the Tribunal while fixing the notional income in a case where the claimant had not proved the income of the deceased. Considering the afore situation, the Ape