FAO No. 360 of 2010 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh FAO No. 360 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 1.2.2010 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited ... Appellant vs Salma and others .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Mrigank Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. Rajesh Bindal J. The present appeal has been filed by the Insurance company against the award of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar (hereinafter to be referred as “the Tribunal”). The brief facts of the case are that on 2.10.2008 Nizamudin @ Dharambir, who was driver of the three wheeler bearing No. HR-39A-7157, was coming to Barwala from Village Kheder to drop two passengers. At about 8/9 p.m., when they reached near Canal Bridge on Khedar Barwala Road in the area of Village Khedar, a Bus bearing No. RJ-31-PA-0217 driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent no. 6 came from Barwala side and collided with the three wheeler. In the accident due to the injuries Nizamudin @ Dharambir died. FIR was registered. The claimants filed claim petition before the learned Tribunal which was allowed. Dissatisfied with the award of the learned Tribunal, the Insurance company is in appeal before this court. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company submitted that the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/- which is not based on any documentary evidence. In the absence of any such documentary evidence, the income of the deceased should have been taken as Rs. 3,500/- per month as of a labourer. He further submitted that 1/4th cut applied by the Tribunal on personal expenses of the deceased is also not correct and 1/3rd deduction should have been made on account of personal expenditure. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the paper-book. It is not disputed by the Insurance company that the deceased was the driver of the three wheeler bearing No. HR-39-A-7157. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the income of the deceased should have been FAO No. 360 of 2010 -2- assessed at Rs. 3,500/- being a daily wager does not carry any weight. It is not disputed that the deceased was running his three wheeler and therefore, his income, as has been rightly observed by the learned Tribunal, would be more than that of a daily wage employee. He was a skilled labourer and therefore the monthly income as Rs. 6,000/- assessed by the learned Tribunal cannot be said on higher side, which is nothing but merely Rs. 200/- per day. The deceased had left behind, his widow, mother, two minor daughters and one minor sister. He was the sole bread earner of the family. In terms of judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009 (6) SCC 121, where the dependent family members are between 4 to 6, a cut of 1/4th is required to be applied and in the present case also, the learned Tribunal has rightly applied 1/4th cut on income of the deceased on account of his personal expenditure which cannot be said as unjustified as the deceased was the only bread earner of the family. For the reasons mentioned above, the present appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay is also dismissed. 1.2.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge