1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 906 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's Orders Mr. D.S.Kulkarni, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. B.V. Dhage, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 4 Mr. D.P.Palodkar, Advocate for respondent no. 5. ............................. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 19/10/2010 PER COURT : 1. The present respondent nos. 1 to 4 had filed claim petition under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act on account of the death of Shantaram, who was the husband of respondent no. 1, father of respondent no. 2 and son of respondent nos. 3 and 4. 2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aurangabad [ For short, ‘ the Tribunal ’ ] after considering the evidence on record and pleadings of the parties, partly allowed the claim petition, thereby directing the original respondent nos. 1 to 3 i.e. present appellants and respondent nos. 5 and 2 6 to jointly and severally pay the claimants amount of Rs. 3,08,500/- ( Rupees Three Lacs Eight Thousand Five Hundred only ) with interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. 3. The Insurance Company has challenged the said Judgment and Award in the present Appeal. 4. Mr. Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the amount of compensation granted is exorbitant and does not stand to reason. The Tribunal has considered the notional income as Rs. 30,000/- ( Rupees Thirty Thousand only ), whereas the Statute has provided the notional income as Rs. 15,000/- ( Rupees Fifteen Thousand only ). According to the learned counsel, the claimants are entitled to the compensation amount by taking into consideration the notional income as Rs. 15,000/- and not Rs. 30,000/- as has been held by the Tribunal. Mr. Kulkarni submitted that there is no basis for holding the notional income as Rs. 30,000/-. The Tribunal has only relied on the Judgment delivered by the Uttaranchal High Court for coming to the said conclusion, but the Tribunal has not considered the date of accident in the said case and the present case. According to him, the circumstances and the Statute as would be prevailing on the date of accident should be considered and in the year 2006, the notional income was Rs. 15,000/-. 3 5. Per contra, Mr. Dhage, the learned counsel for the original claimants/present respondent nos. 1 to 4 contends that no fault can be attributed to the Judgment of the Tribunal in as much as even as per the Payment of Wages Act, the minimum wages at the relevant time for an unskilled labour was Rs. 102/- per day. According to the learned counsel, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the minimum amount that could be awarded. 6. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the respective parties, I have gone through the Judgment, the record and proceedings. 7. The present Appeal is restricted to the quantum of compensation. The amount which has been awarded, is based on the calculation of notional income as there was no proof of actual income earned by the deceased. The deceased was having agricultural land and was dealing in milk business as per the claimants. But, they could not prove the income by any documentary evidence. When the deceased was able-bodied person and was in a position to do work, in absence of any documentary proof of income, the Tribunal was right in considering the notional income. In such circumstances, the notional income can be considered on the basis of the minimum wages and even at the relevant time i.e. in the year 2006 when the accident had taken place, the notional income of Rs. 30,000/- is rightly considered. 4 8. In light of the above, the impugned Judgment and Award does not suffer from any illegality and the present Appeal as such is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 9. In view of dismissal of Second Appeal, the Civil Application does not survives and as such disposed off. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] JUDGE knp/FA 906.10