FAO No.1318 of 2008 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1318 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.9.2011. Guddi Devi and another ....Appellants Versus Rajender and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Ms.Sheenu Sura, Advocate for the appellants Mr.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for respondent-Insurance Company ***** Jitendra Chauhan, J.(Oral) CM No.3796 of 2004 For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. The delay of 63 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Main case The present appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 24.9.2007 on account of death of Pawan, husband of appellant No.1 and father of respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the learned Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased. Further the FAO No.1318 of 2008 (O&M) 2 owner of the truck has also pleaded that the deceased was working as conductor on his truck. He was the only bread earner in the family consisting of mother and brother, as his father had already expired. Further contends that the learned Tribunal has not granted adequate compensation under the conventional heads. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3- Insurance Company has opposed the prayer of the appellant and stated that the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award. From the perusal of the award, it is made out that the age of the deceased at the time of death was 21 years, as per postmortem report Ex.P1. He was the only bread earner in the family. It was a great shock to the family members of the deceased. He left behind her widowed mother and minor brother as dependents. It is well established from the statement of RW1 Manjeet Singh that the deceased was working as conductor on his truck bearing registration No. RJ 21G-0246. Therefore, the statement made by Manjeet Singh owner of the truck has been corroborated by PW1 Smt.Guddi Devi mother of the deceased. The learned Tribunal has assessed his income as ` 15000/- per annum and made 1/3rd deduction as there are two dependents. As such, the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed his income and the same should have been assessed as per schedule of the Minimum Wages Act. As per notification dated 17.12.2004 issued by the Haryana Government under Section 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, the minimum rates of wages of an unskilled worker was ` 3510/- per month. FAO No.1318 of 2008 (O&M) 3 After considering the said minimum wages i.e. ` 3510x12= 42,120/- per annum and deducting 1/3rd, of the income of the deceased towards his living expenses, it comes to ` 28,080/-. Further, the amount awarded under the other conventional heads are just and adequate. As such, there is no need of enhancement. No other point has been urged or agitated by the either counsel. Thus, the total compensation comes to ` 4,49,280/- (28080 x 16). Accordingly, the balance amount i.e. `2,89,280/ (4,49,280- 1,60,000 already awarded by the learned Tribunal) shall be paid to the appellants in the manner indicated in the impugned award, within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the present appeal, till the payment is made. In view of above, the present appeal is partly allowed with the modification indicated above. 16.9.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE