Devanti Devi @ Hewanti Devi vs Om Prakash Singh

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J

Claimants are in appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded under Section 166 of the in Claim Case No. 15 of 2012 for the death of Dinesh Yadav in a motor vehicle accident on 13.06.2011.

It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellants that deceased was working as a mason and the witnesses have deposed that he was a having monthly income of Rs. 7,500/-. However, the learned trial Court has accepted only Rs. 4000/- per month as the monthly income. It is further contended that no income under the head of loss of earning under future prospects has been awarded and although claimants are seven in number, but amount under the heading of consortium is only Rs. 1,00,000/- which has been awarded. Further, the interest amount is only 6%, in view of the ratio laid down in Dharampal v. UP State Road Transport, III 2008 ACC (1), it should have been 7.5 % from the date of claim application.

Learned counsel on behalf of the Insurance-Company has defended the impugned award. It is submitted that no documentary evidence has been brought on record to show that the deceased was having Rs. 7,500/- per month as his income at the time of accident in the year 2011. The income for semi-skilled labour was Rs. 3966/- per month.

Having considered the submissions advanced behalf of both sides, this Court is of the view that to assess the income of a person who is in an unorganized sector, a realistic view has to be taken and any income stated by the witnesses cannot be accepted on their face value alone.

Considering the irregular nature of the work of a mason, I do not find any error on the part of the Tribunal to have assessed the monthly income at the rate of Rs. 4000/- per month. However, their compensation amount is liable to be enhanced on two counts. Firstly, the future prospect has not been awarded and the interest is to be enhanced from 6% to 7.5%. As per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, the claimants will be entitled to a compensation of Rs. 77,000/- under non-convention head including consortium.

It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the Insurance-Company that claimant no. 2-Ramautar Yadav @ Gunjan Kumar has stated his age to be 28 years in the memo of appeal which was filed in the year 2018. Meaning thereby, he was 21 years of age at the time of accident. Under the circumstance age of the deceased as deposed by the witnesses to be 38 years in their deposition, cannot be accepted, rather the age of 48 years as assessed in the post mortem report, will be acceptable.

Taking Rs. 4000/- as the monthly income and 48 years as his age, the final compensation will work out as under: -

Annual Income = Rs.4000/- X 12

Rs.48,000/-

Future Prospect Rs.48,000/-

X 25%

Rs. 12000/-

After adding annual income and future prospect

Rs.48,000 + Rs.12000 =Rs. 60,000/-

Deduction of 50% personal and living expense

Rs. 30,000/-

Multiplier of 13 taking the age of the deceased to be 48

Rs. 3,90,000/-

Conventional Head

Rs.77,000/-

Total Compensation

Rs. 4,67,000/-

In view of the fact that learned Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 6,86,000/- with interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of claim application, there is therefore no further scope for enhancement of compensation amount.

Under the circumstance, the Insurance Company is directed to make payment of Rs. 4,67,600/- with interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim application, within a month of the order, which shall be disbursed to the claimants by the Tribunal on terms fixed by it. For the reasons as discussed in M.A. No. 386 of 2025 dated 18.11.2025, the interest will not be admissible on the compensation awarded under the heading of future prospects.

This Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Pending, I.A., if any, stands disposed of.