Suresh Chand and Others vs Ajay Kumar and Others

Kailash Gambhir, J.—A short controversy has been raised by the appellant in the present appeal. The grievance of the appellants is that the Tribunal has not considered the correct income of the deceased although salary certificate showing an income of Rs. 4,160/- was duly proved on record. It is also contended that the Tribunal has not considered the grant of any compensation due to the increase of the income in future. Since this is a short controversy and respondent No. 3 is duly represented by their designated counsel Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Therefore, this matter can be disposed of at this stage itself. The counsel appearing for the parties have also no objection if the matter is taken up for final hearing.

Admit.

The facts which are necessary for deciding the present appeal is as under:

On 17.2.2004 at around 4.30 am., the deceased Nitin Ahuja was riding his scooter bearing registration No. DL8SR-1359 on GTK Road in front of Invitation Banquets Hall (Bijli) Bijli Apartment and in the meantime a TATA Quails bearing registration No. DL-IVB-0672 which was coming from Azadpur side on GTK Road hit the vehicle of the deceased in a most rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed, due to which deceased suffered fatal injuries and he died .

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Counsel for appellants contends that the deceased Mr. Nitin Ahuja was of 20 years of age at the time of accident and he was working as Crew Member on part time basis in Plaza Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. and also part time salesman for S.S. Super Sales Corporation and from the said sources, he was earning a sum of Rs. 8,000/- p.m. The deceased is survived by his parents and two sisters. Counsel further contends that Shri Suresh Chand who appeared as a witness in support of the claim petition had produced and proved the appointment letter of Mr.Nitin Ahuja as Ex.PW2/2. But the Tribunal did not believe the income of the deceased as no witness from the employer of the deceased was produced. In any case of the matter, counsel for the appellants contends that no increase in the Minimum Wages Act has been considered by the Tribunal. Counsel also contends that under the Minimum Wages Act, in a period of 15 years, the minimum wages certainly gets increased to manifold.

Per contra, counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 refutes the said submissions of counsel for the appellant. Mr. Pradeep Gaur, counsel for respondent No. 3 contends that once the appellants had failed to prove the salary certificate of the deceased by producing the employer, Therefore, no infirmity can be found with the finding of the Tribunal by not relying upon the salary certificate of the deceased. As regards the submission of counsel for the appellant for considering increase in the future wages under the Minimum Wages Act, Mr. Gaur, counsel for respondent No. 3 contends that the grant of future wages cannot be considered in the present case as in the case relied upon by the Tribunal in Fakeerappa and Another Vs. Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory and Others, , no such increase was considered by the Supreme Court. Counsel further contends that since the deceased was 20 years of age, Therefore, a young person of such an age would have got married at least between the age of 25 to 27 years and, Therefore, he would be spending 2/3rd of his income towards maintaining himself and his family. The contention of counsel for the respondent is that after a gap of 5 to 7 years, 2/3rd income should have been taken into account towards personal expenses of the deceased. Counsel also contends that the Hon''ble Supreme Court in many such cases where death of an unmarried boy is involved has awarded compensation varying between Rs. 1,80,000/- up to Rs. 3 lakhs. Counsel, thus, contends that just and fair compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at considerable length and have perused the records.

In the instant case, the death of a young boy of 20 years has taken place who is survived by his parents and two sisters. It is no doubt true that the appellants failed to prove the income of the deceased by leading any cogent evidence. In this regard the Hon''ble Apex Court in The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Meena Variyal and Others, held as under:

It was necessary for the claimants to establish what was the monthly income and what was the dependency on the basis of which the compensation could be adjudged as payable. Should not any Tribunal trained in law ask the claimants to produce evidence in support of the monthly salary or income earned by the deceased from his employer company? Is there anything in the Motor Vehicles Act which stands in the way of the Tribunal asking for the best evidence, acceptable evidence? We think not. Here again, the position that the Motor Vehicles Act vis-�-vis claim for compensation arising out of an accident is a beneficent piece of legislation, cannot lead a Tribunal trained in law to forget all basic principles of establishing liability and establishing the quantum of compensation payable. The Tribunal, in this case, has chosen to merely go by the oral evidence of the widow when without any difficulty the claimants could have got the employer Company to produce the relevant documents to show the income that was being derived by the deceased from his employment.

To prove the income of the deceased, the owner or the employer are the best witnesses. But since no such witness was produced by the appellants, Therefore, the Tribunal rightly and correctly disbelieved the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,160/- p.m. In the absence of any such documentary evidence, the Tribunal has rightly taken recourse to the Minimum Wages Act to assess the income on the basis of the wages of an unskilled workman, which at the relevant date of accident was Rs. 2862.90 p.m. which has been taken at Rs. 2,900/- p.m. to make a round figure. This Court has already taken this view that once the income of the deceased is being assessed under the Minimum Wages Act then the increase in the minimum wages in such like cases should also be taken into consideration. It has been noticed that under the Minimum Wages Act, the increase in a period of 10 years almost comes to more than double of the income and such increase in the wages is determined under the Minimum Wages Act after taking into consideration the inflation and price index and also the denunciation of currency. So this increase is just to neutralize the cost factor and the same cannot be treated at par with the future prospects. Future prospects of the deceased relate to the promotional avenues of the deceased, grant of increments or any other advancement in his career. By considering the increase in the Minimum Wages Act, the status of the person remains the same as in the present case. The deceased has taken to have been working as an unskilled workman and the salary of the unskilled workman alone would be taken into consideration for granting the increase as well.

I, Therefore, do not find any merit in the argument of counsel for respondent No. 3 that income under the Minimum Wages Act should not be taken into consideration in such like cases. The income as assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 2,900/- would get doubled within a period of 10 years which would come to Rs. 5,800/- and taking an average of the same, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs. 4,350/-. The Tribunal has already deducted 50% towards his personal expenses and I do not feel inclined to interfere in the same. Applying the multiplier of 15 on the annual multiplicand of Rs. 26,100/-, the total financial dependency of the parents would come to Rs. 3,91,500/-. The award of Rs. 2,61,000/- as granted by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency would stand enhanced to Rs. 3,91,500/-. Rest of the award does not need any interference nor any challenge has been made by the appellants during the course of the arguments.

Counsel for the appellants states that the appellants have already received the compensation amount as awarded by the Tribunal. Respondent No. 3 shall now pay the differential amount along with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of filing of the petition till its realization.

With these directions, the appeal stands disposed of.