When documented monthly salaries vary, the court should adopt an average for income assessment. Additionally, conventional heads of compensation (loss of estate, funeral expenses, and consortium) must be updated with a 20% increase as per Supreme Court guidelines.

ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) vide award dated 05.12.2022.

2. Since the factum of the accident is not in dispute, the facts, as recorded in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, are not being adverted to herein for the sake of brevity.

3. The Tribunal had awarded the following compensation :

Interest @ 7.5% per annum

4. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellants would contend that though the income of the deceased has been assessed as per the salary slips (Ex.PW4/F), however, in addition the deceased was earning ₹20,000 per month by doing computer work. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that the deceased was earning an amount of ₹40,000 per month. Learned counsel would further contend that the Tribunal while assessing the income has taken the last drawn salary however the average of the salary drawn by the deceased for the last three months ought to have been taken which would come to ₹11,000 per month. Though the claimant-appellants do not challenge the deduction, the addition made towards the future prospects and the multiplier as applied by the Tribunal, however, the amounts awarded under the conventional heads i.e. loss of estate and funeral expenses and under the head loss of consortium are on the lower side. In support of his contentions the learned counsel for the claimant-appellants has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680], Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. [(2018) 18 SCC 130] and N. Jayasree & Ors. vs. Cholamandalam M.S General Insurance Company Ltd. [2021(4) RCR (Civil) 642]

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company has contended that there is not an iota of evidence on the record to show that the deceased was earning ₹40,000 per month. Even as per the salary slips (Ex.PW4/F) for the months of August, September and October 2019, the deceased had earned ₹11,407, ₹11,924 and ₹10,945 and that the Tribunal had rightly taken the last drawn salary and rounded off to ₹10,500 per month. Learned counsel has further contended that there is no evidence on the record that the deceased was doing any other work as has been alleged. It is further the contention that sufficient amount has already been awarded as compensation in the present case and that there is no scope of any enhancement.

6. Heard.

7. In the present case the argument of the learned counsel for the claimant-appellants that the deceased was earning ₹40,000 per month and as such his income has wrongly been assessed by the Tribunal deserves to be rejected. There is no evidence on the record to even remotely suggest that the deceased was earning ₹40,000 per month. Even as per the salary slip