Office Notes,

reports, orders or proceedings

SL.

Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

No.

and Registrar’s

order with Signatures

A.O. No.318 of 2024

Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr. Naresh Pant, Advocate for the

appellant.

Mr. Shailabh Pandey, Advocate for the claimants/respondent nos.1 to 5.

2. This Appeal from Order has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award dated 20.05.2024 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar

passed in M.A.C.P. No.24 of 2023.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently urged that the learned Tribunal has fallen into manifest error while determining the notional income of the deceased. It is contended that the Tribunal erroneously assessed the income of the deceased at a higher rate by taking into consideration the minimum wages notified in the State of Uttarakhand. It is further submitted that the deceased was admittedly a permanent resident of the State of Uttar Pradesh, where the notified notional income is comparatively lower than that of Uttarakhand. Despite this, the learned Tribunal, without assigning cogent reasons, proceeded to compute the income on the basis of the wages applicable in the State of Uttarakhand, thereby rendering the award legally

unsustainable.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1

to 5 has strenuously contended that the award rendered by the learned Tribunal is just, proper, equitable and in strict consonance with law and, therefore, does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Learned counsel has further placed reliance upon a Government Order issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh, which unequivocally demonstrates that the minimum wages notified therein, with effect from 30.09.2022, are ₹9,530/-. It is urged that the said amount is substantially higher than the income notionally assessed by the learned Tribunal, thereby fortifying the correctness of the impugned award.

5. Having carefully considered the rival submissions and the material placed on record, this Court finds that the controversy essentially pertains to the determination of the notional income of the deceased. The appellant has urged that the learned Tribunal committed an error in adopting the minimum wages of the State of Uttarakhand, instead of the State of Uttar Pradesh, where the deceased was admittedly residing. According to the appellant, the wages prevalent in Uttar Pradesh are lower and, therefore, ought to have been applied. Learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 5 has not only defended the award on the ground of its correctness, but has also produced a Government Order issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh, which indicates that the minimum wages notified therein w.e.f. 30.09.2022 are ₹9,530/-. The said figure is demonstrably higher than the notional income assessed by the learned Tribunal. This submission, therefore, substantially