[1]. This order of mine shall dispose of the following two appeals arising out of an award dated 02.08.2019, pertaining to same motor vehicular accident, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (for short 'the Tri Tribunal'):

1 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 27-07-2024 13:46:27 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:094641 2 FAO Nos.1103 of 2020 & 6660 of 2019 (O&M) M)

ii) FAO No.1103 of 2020 (O&M) titled as "KAJAL AND OTHERS vs PARDEEP AND OTHERS" filed by the dependants of the deceased for enhancement of compensation. For the sake of brevity facts are being taken from FAO No.1103 of 2020 filed by claimants whereby challenge to an award dated 02.08.2019 passed by the Tribunal, whereby compensation of Rs.20,86,000/ Rs.20,86,000/- was awarded to the appellants/claimants along with interest @ 6% per annum.

[2]. The appellants/claimants appellants/claimants being dependents of deceased, Sunil, filed claim petition before the Tribunal praying for grant of compen compensation sation to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum on account his death in motor vehicular accident which took place on 23.06.2018 alleging rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1/driver. [3]. Learned Tribunal after appraisal of evidence and record held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 1/ driver and considering the deceased as unskilled labourer upon assessing his income as Rs 10,000/- per month, awarded compensation in the following manner manner-

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:094641 3 FAO Nos.1103 of 2020 & 6660 of 2019 (O&M) M) [4]. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants contended that keeping in view the fact that the deceased was working as a Halwai, the Tribunal arbitrarily rily assessed his income as Rs.10,000/-

Rs. per month while it should have been assessed at least @ Rs.20,000/ 20,000/- per month as deceased be being ing involved in specialized trade requiring unique skills the services rendered by him could not have been treated at par with unskilled labourer. He further submitted that learned Tribunal denied consortium on account of loss of love and affection to appellant Nos.2 2 to 5 which should have been awarded in view of the settled law. Further, he argued that compensation granted under the conventional heads are also required to be given and interest awarded @ 6% per annum was also on lower side and it be increased reased as well.

[5]. Per contra, learned counsel representing respondent No.3-Insurance nsurance Company ompany submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it being a case of head-on on collision, collision both the drivers were jointly responsible for accident and, and thus, the liability for payment of compensation could not be solely fastened upon respondent No.3 o.3-Insurance Company ompany in view of decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of " Bijoy Kumar Dugar vs Bidydhar Dutta & Ors.", Ors ."

reported as 2006(3) SCC 242.

242 He further argued that income of deceased was assessed on higher side as prevalent minimum wages for unskilled labour at the time of accident were @ Rs.8,500/-

Rs per month and as such appellants appellants-claimants claimants had been compensated in excess and the claim amount was liable to be reduced. [6]. I have heard learned counsel of parties and gone through the paper book of the case and records of the Tribunal as well. I find force in the argument raised by the learning counsel of appellants/claimants.

3 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 27-07-2024 13:46:27 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:094641 4 FAO Nos.1103 of 2020 & 6660 of 2019 (O&M) M) DISCUSSION ON FASTENING OF LIABILITY [7]. A perusal of record shows show that in the present case eyewitness, Krishan Lal, who also happened to report the FIR, FIR, while deposing as PW PW-2 in his affidavit Ex. PW2/A mentioned that respondent No.1-driver driver of the offending vehicle was w driving in a very rash and negligent manner and had come onto wrong side of the road while hitting the vehicle of the deceased. The fact that PW PW-2 was merely 20- 20 25 feet away from the vehicle of deceased and clearly mentioned the colour, make and registration ation number of the offending vehicle even his un-impeached lengthy cross-examination examination furthers the cause that respondent No.1-driver driver was solely responsible for the motor vehicular accident and this fact was never controverted by either of the respondents through hrough any evidence led before the Tribunal. Also, the reliance placed upon by learned counsel for respondent No. No.3-Insurance Insurance company on Bijoy Kumar Dugar 's (supra) case would not come to his help as facts there are clearly distinguishable. In n the present case the offending vehicle was not visible from a far of distance rather it was around 30 feet away when it appeared in front of the vehicle driven by deceased, thus, there was no opportunity for deceased to have applied reasonable precaution and this fact was even deposed by eyewitness appearing as PW-2 PW 2 and never controverted by the respondents. Thus, the appeal filed by respondent No.3-Insurance nsurance Company ompany on the question of joint-liability liability in the present case being devoid of merits is decided against it. QUESTION OF INCOME ASSESSED AND COMPENSATION [8]. In the absence of any documentary evidence regarding the profession and income of the deceased, the Tribunal assessed his income on the basis of minimum wages wages of an unskilled labour as Rs.

Rs.10,000/-per per month. However, 4 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 27-07-2024 13:46:27 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:094641 5 FAO Nos.1103 of 2020 & 6660 of 2019 (O&M) M) minimum wages cannot be an absolute criterion to assess the income of a deceased when documentary evidence regarding income of deceased is not available. It was held by Hon'ble Apex Court in " Zakir "Zakir Hussein vs Sabir and others " reported eported as 2015(2) RCR(Civil) 141 that notification of minimum wages is only a yardstick for assessing the income of the person but it is not an absolute factor to be taken into consideration, as at times it fails to meet the requirements that are needed to t maintain the basic quality of life.

life. Relevant para from the said judgment ment is reproduced hereunder:-

5 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 27-07-2024 13:46:27 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:094641 6 FAO Nos.1103 of 2020 & 6660 of 2019 (O&M) M) five months. We have to enhance the same to L 76,500/ 76,500/- ( L 4,500 X 17 months)."

[8.1] In " Kubrabibi v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd ."

Ltd.", reported as 2023(3) 23 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that in the absence Apex Court Judgments (SC) 23, of definite proof of the income, the social status of the deceased is to be kept in perspective where such persons are employed in unorganized secto sector. Relevant ant para from this judgment ment is reproduced here under:

[8.2] The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as unskilled labourer by observing that in the absence of any cogent documentary evidence regarding his salary, It cannot be held to be conclusively proved. However, ld. Tribunal, while doing so, failed to consider that Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 being a 6 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 27-07-2024 13:46:27 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:094641 7 FAO Nos.1103 of 2020 & 6660 of 2019 (O&M) M) beneficial piece of legislation, strict rules of evidence as applicable in a civil or criminal trial, are not applicable in motor accident compensation cases. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in "Rajwati Ltd.", reported as 2023(3) Apex @ Rajjo v. United India Insurance Company Ltd .

(S 684,, relevant paras from which are reproduced hereunder:

[8.3] In the present case, wife of the deceased, Kajal, while deposing as PW-1 1 stated on affidavitEx.PW-1/A affidavitEx.PW 1/A that her husband was working as Halwai and was earning Rs. 20,000/-

20,000/ per month. Substantiating the same, eyewitness eyewitness-Krishan Krishan Lal whilee lodging FIR also stated that deceased worked as Halwai. No counter evidence was brought on record by the appellant/Insurance Company to rebut the 7 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 27-07-2024 13:46:27 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:094641 8 FAO Nos.1103 of 2020 & 6660 of 2019 (O&M) M) same. It cannot also be denied that apart from maintaining his family including four minor children, the deceased was also taking care of his parents. [8.4] In such circumstances and view of discussion made herein above, assessing thee income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/ Rs.10,000/- on the basis of minimum wages of unskilled labour would not be appropriate and the argume argument nt raised by b learned Counsel representing respondent r No.3-IInsurance Company ompany that income of the deceased should have been assessed based on prevalent minimum wages holds no force. As such, even if his salary salary is not assessed as Rs.

Rs.20,000/- as claimed by the appellants,, it should have at least been assessed as Rs. 15000/ 15000/- per month.

[9]. In view of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in "Smt. Sarla Verma another", reported as 2009 ( 3) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another "

8 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 27-07-2024 13:46:27 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:094641 9 FAO Nos.1103 of 2020 & 6660 of 2019 (O&M) M) [10]. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the appellants/claimants shall be entitled for the grant of compensation in the following manner:-

2. Add 40% % of Future prospects Rs. 72,000/-

72,000/ 3 Total Income (Rs.1,80,000/ (Rs.1,80,000/- + Rs 72,000/-) Rs. 2,52,000 /-

4. Deduction (1/5th) Rs. 50,400/-

5. Multiplier of 15 5 as per age of 36 Rs.30,24,000/-

Rs.30,24,000/ years(Rs.2,02,6000 /- X 15

7. Funeral Expenses Rs.18,000/--

8. Loss of Consortium (Rs.48000x7 (Rs.48000x7) Rs. 3,36,000/-

9. Loss of Estate Rs.18,000/--

Total Compensation Rs.33,96,000/-

Rs.33,96,000/ Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Rs.20,86,000/-

and circumstances of the present case; rather as per the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in " Smt. Supe Dei and others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and other", reported as (2009) (4) SCC 513 approved in a subsequent judgment titled as " Puttamma Puttamma and others Vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and another ",, reported as 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443 443,, the interest is enhanced @ 9% per annum on the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants from the date of institution of claim petition till its realization. Needless to mention here 9 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 27-07-2024 13:46:27 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:094641 10 FAO Nos.1103 of 2020 & 6660 of 2019 (O&M) M) that the amount of compensation already paid to the claims shall be deducted from the enhanced compensation.

CONCLUSION [12]. Thus, the FAO No.6660 of 2019 filed on behalf of the Insurance company ny is hereby dismissed and FAO No.1103 of 2020 filed on behalf of the claimants is disposed of in above terms. [13]. Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, shall also stand disposed of.