*****

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants/claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award dated 28.02.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (for short, “the Tribunal”), whereby compensation to the tune Rs. 4,35,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum was awarded on account of death of Gurcharan Singh in a motor vehicular accident dated 05.04.2014.

2. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, a detailed narration of facts of the case is not reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.

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

3. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was on the lower side and deserved enhancement. It was argued that the Tribunal gravely erred in assessing the income of deceased at a meager rate on the basis of daily wages. He further submitted that the Tribunal further failed to apply settled principles of law governing computation of compensation, particularly with respect to addition towards future prospects, application of appropriate multiplier, and grant of just compensation under conventional heads such as loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. Lastly, it was urged that the rate of interest awarded was equally unjust and contrary to settled judicial precedents, therefore, he prayed that the award of the Tribunal be suitably modified in accordance with law.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT No. 4/INSURANCE COMPANY.

4. Per contra, learned counsel representing respondent No. 4/Insurance Company, neither refuted the factum of accident nor even the negligence of the offending vehicle, however submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal called for no interference.

DISCUSSION AND REASONING

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book of the case. I find substance in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants.

QUEESTION OF INCOME ASSESSED

6. The primary controversy revolves around the determination of the income of the deceased at the time of the accident. Though the claimants asserted that the deceased was working as a Mason earning Rs.20,000/- per month, however, no documentary evidence was brought on record to substantiate the same. Nevertheless, it cannot be lost sight of that the deceased was a skilled labourer/Mason. The Tribunal erred in assessing his income on the basis of minimum wages applicable to a daily wager. A Mason is a skilled worker and judicial notice can safely be taken of the fact that a skilled labourer engaged in masonry work earns substantially more than a daily wager. Even in absence of documentary evidence, the income is required to be assessed on the touchstone of ground realities and nature of avocation.

6.1 In this situation observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav & Ors.”, reported as (2022) 1 SCC 198, to the effect that in the absence of proof of income, the minimum wage notification can be a yardstick but at the same time cannot be absolute one to fix the income of the deceased and some guesswork is required to be done to assess the income. Relevant excerpt thereof is reproduced hereunder:-

“…….In the absence of salary certificate the minimum wage notification can be a yardstick but at the same time cannot be an absolute one to fix the income of the deceased. In the absence of documentary evidence on record some amount of guesswork is required to be done. But at the same time the guesswork for assessing the income of deceased should not be totally detached from reality. Merely because claimants were unable to produce documentary evidence to show the monthly income of Shivpal, same does not ju